Like everyone else, I'm watching my supply of reloading components. I have a surplus of large rifle magnum primers compared to standard large rifle primers, and I shoot standard cartridges a lot more than magnum cartridges. I think I have read that using magnum primers in standard cartridges is not a problem, but it's probably wise to reduce the powder charge somewhat, all else being equal.

What does the campfire intelligentsia say? Thanks!

I'd say do more and broader reading especially the readily available books from John Barsness. Components might be rare and expensive but knowledge is readily available and cheap at the price. Might start with say


By no means am I saying the problem is insoluble but I am certainly saying "not a problem" is a risk that ranks right up there with hold my beer and watch this.

What should a prudent handloader do any time he changes a component in a given reload? [not a trick question ]

southtexas,

In general, this is one of the "problems" where a chronograph is the handloader's best friend. When switching to a magnum rifle primer (or even to a certain extent anytime you switch primers) a chronograph will provide a pretty good guide to pressures, as long as every other component is the same.

Depending on the size of the case, drop the powder charge a grain or three, and see what muzzle velocity results. Then adjust the charge to about the same as the velocity using the standard primer.

Clark,

Thanks for the book recommendation! Rifle Troubleshooting and Handloading is now in its third printing, and keeps plodding along, a decade after it appeared....

John

Sounds like some sound advise here.

Not large rifle, because I have a lot of LRP, but I change standards to magnum pistol primers when I a shooting different types of powders. I use std. with W231,but get better accuracy using magnums in Universal. Of course adjusting powder amounts to suit.

Been using them in 243 and 30-06, just make sure you start your powder charge a few grains less while working up a load since mag primers are a little hotter.

Yes, there is a lot of good advice re LR magnum primers in place of LR standard primers for load development.

A topic I don't recall seeing though is minimum bullet weight (regardless of cartridge). Can the "hotter" LR magnum primer begin to propel a relatively light bullet prior to the powder beginning its burn? I am thinking non magnum cartridges like .223 REM, 243 WIN, or even something like a 125 grain bullet in .308 WIN.

While it’s a limited set of examples, the article on this subject by Brian Pearce in the 2015 Hodgdon annual provides some good illustrations of what can happen, and also some surprising ones where nothing much did. Since a couple applied directly to stuff I use, I perhaps got more out of it than others will. Worth seeking out.

I will have to check it out.

I have run a few experiments using Federal and CCI regular and magnum primers in 30-06 and 7.62x54R cartridges, measuring pressure and MV. I did not find any case where there was a significant difference.

Recently, I ran another test in 5.56x45 measuring only MV vs. CCI magnum and regular primers. There was no significant difference in MV. However, the standard primers started to plateau at lower charges than the magnum primers did.

That is not to say that there is no demon out there. I just haven't found where he lives.

I have never swapped from standard to magnum primers on a load already worked up, but I have gone the other way, subbing standard primers for magnums. I saw similar velocity in both cases, and slightly better groups with one and slightly worse groups with another. Sometimes primer choice seems to really matter with certain powders, but I have also found the opposite is true with other powders.

Going back 35 years with a bunch of 270’s with H4831 and 150 grainers everytime I substituted mag primers my groups got larger. Every time.

With RL26 powder mag primers did improve accuracy a tiny bit over standard primers in one 270. No difference in another.

My rule of thumb is I use magnums in loads greater than 75gr of powder. That said, every rifle is different. I can tell you I dropped DOWN to standard primers in my 338 (73gr of RL-19 and 210 TTSXs) and my groups for better.

Just another opinion without a lot of data to back it up..I ended up with a bunch of CCI Mag LR and some Fed 215 rifle primers for cheap a while back...I don't have any of the cartridges that one would normally associate with mag primers but who can be picky these days? I clang a LOT of steel and I cautiously started substituting mag for standard...in the 06 using IMR 4831...no velocity change, in the 6.5 Creed and H414 I gained about 30 fps, in the 6.5 Swede (29" bbl) with VV N160, I LOST 35 fps, in the 7.65 Belgian I again lost about 30 fps. WTH???
My half baked conclusion: in an efficient cartridge and somewhere around 90% volume of powder fill, mag primers don't mean a thing. Maybe they should be best utilized in overbore boomers.

Flintlock,
My experience has been with slow burning powder in 06 capacity cases mag vs standard primers don’t have a noticeable effect on velocity.

Large case capacity
Ball powders (I like H414)
Cold weather

Put those three ingredients together and I always use Fed 215
Or
WLRM

How does it affect my groups??? Not sure because I’ve never tested groups in sub 30f temps. Just rather eliminate a variable when hunting.

A few comments:

I started testing magnum vs. standard primers around 30 years ago. My first "experiment" involved the original mil-surp H4831 in the .30-06 with 180 and 200-grain bullets, a powder which was pretty bulky, especially with 200-grain Partitions. I found that 58.0 grains of H4831 with Federal 215s matched the velocity of 60.0 grains with CCI 200s--which helped the "problem" of getting enough powder in the case considerably.

This sort of deal doesn't always apply, but since then I have done a LOT more experimentation with various primers in cartridges from the .17 Hornet on up. Whether any difference occurs in velocity and accuracy depends on several factors--and not just the primer but the specific powder, including how much the powder charge fills the case. And the primer can also make a difference in how temperature resistant powders can be, whether or not they're advertised as temp-resistant.

Also, one of the advantages of being a gun writer is being able to consult with various people in the business, including long-experienced pressure-lab folks. Several of them provided great info on different primers, including stuff involving pressures, velocities and the consistency of both.

One was Ron Reiber, the recently retired head of the Hodgdon pressure-lab for several decades. I first got to know Ron around 30 years ago, when he contacted me about some problems with H335 I mentioned in an article. It turned out the difficulty was due to Hodgdon running out of the mil-surp powder they called H335, and having a new version produced--which turned out to burn somewhat faster.

Another good source of info from 1990s was the A-Square handloading manual, which included a chapter on how primers affect pressure, listing the piezo-electronic experiments they conducted. The results varied with the cartridge and powder, which could be expected, but they definitely occurred--and often the primer made a considerable difference.

Among other things I discovered was that there's also some overlap in "standard" and "magnum" primers, especially in large rifle primers--but also in some small-rifle primers. Not all "standard" primers result in the same pressures and velocities, and neither do all "magnum" primers.

As my research and experimenting continued I published several articles about all this, which also included how some brand/types of primers have changed over time. Most of this information eventually appeared in my Gun Gack books--but it involved a LOT more shooting (both mine and the results from ballistic labs) than trying a typical pair of of standard and magnum primers in a few cartridges.

John, I think we've discussed previously, but a good friend of mine who posts here and is an avid reloader related to me that a Federal engineer recommended magnum primers only if case capacity exceeded 80 grains. A few years ago I bought a bunch of primed 338 WM made by Federal so I pulled one of the primers and it was a 210.

How would you know a 210 from a 215?

I don't believe there's a hard and fast capacity break over point. The particular primer and powder combination is surely in play.

I've been loading long enough to have several generations of primers in my stash, particularly CCI. There was a time when the CCI large rifle magnum primer didn't have a "hotter" compound in it than their regular primer. It just had more priming compound. The recommendation in the Speer data was to use the magnum primer for ball powders including cartridges with much smaller capacity than 80 grains.

I'm not a "primer scientist" but I can think of several things about how a primer gets things started. How much heat is available from the priming charge? At what temperature is this heat delivered? How sharp is the delivery?

This generally has been my observation. I have not done a lot of experimentation, but the mag primers have not been a game changer. I have quite a few mag primers, so if/when I run out of standards, I have no issue switching to use the mags.

I was just going to mention this. In my Speer manual number 12 all ball powders are listed with magnum primers. Even with cartridges 50 grain and smaller maximum charge weights. At least the cartridges I load for.

Pretty easy to distinguish. You don’t load them?

I got 5,000 Gederal 210s and 5000 Federsl 215s and I can't tell the difference looking at them

He said he pulled a primer out of primed 338 brass and determined it to be a 210

Yeah, we probably have discussed this!

But I have encountered many exceptions to that, including using magnum primers in the .220 Swift with Ramshot Big game and 55-grain Ballistic Tips. With CCI 200s 100-yard groups averaged over 1-1/2 inches, but with Federal 215s the same load averaged .66 inch.

Thanks, Gentlemen for all your input! Threads like this are the reason I hang around the 'fire!

I have a Ruger American in.243 that is not giving me the groups I would like with various 95-100 grain bullets over Ramshot Hunter. I'm thinking I will try magnum primers when I get some time and see if that helps any. I've heard that sometimes magnum primers can shrink groups when using double based powders, so I may as well give it a try. I'll back off a couple of grains at the start to be safe.

John, I've pretty much kept to that rule of thumb, except where proven loads work with magnum primers. The only eye opener that didn't work was with the 257 Weatherby. 71.3gr (factory equivalent according to the old Weatherby Guide) with 100gr pills for a true to book velocity. Tried 210s and groups opened up significantly. One caliber that did surprise me was the 375 H&H. My go to load had always been 76gr og H414 215M primers, WW cases and 300gr A Frames. Worked great on everything from a kudu at 350 yards to wildebeest at 50 and good velocity (2550 fps). When I switched to TSXs, JJ Hack gave me his load using 74gr of RL-15 for the 270gr and 72 for the 300. Very accurate and good velocity. TRied 215s and both loads were markedly less accurate.

I'm using Ramshot Hunter with Fed 215 primer and 168 TTSX in my 30-06 and shot 1/2 MOA at 2950 FPS

I'm glad I saw this thread. I've been somewhat ignorant about the risks of willy-nilly going from standard primers to magnum primers. Sometimes what you don't know can bite you in the ass. Having said that, in the past I've discovered that my 7x57 groups way better with H4i4 when I use magnum primes, same goes for the 30.06 when using H414.

Not really a true rifle cartridge, but I have one rifle in 45 Colt that is finicky on primers like that. It shoots anywhere between middling and not worth a wooden nickel with standards, but groups tighten up to most shots touching @50yds with Fed155 and CCI350 magnums across several different powder/bullet combos.

Though magnum primers often help spherical (ball) powders, which are all double-based, they don't always help extruded double-based powders. The "problem" with spherical powders is the deterrent coatings, which control burn rate. The coatings are why traditional spherical powders tended to burn "dirty"--because by by definition they're harder to burn.

Though many extruded powders, both single- and double-based, also feature such coatings, they're not nearly as difficult to burn as those used in spherical powders.

Might also mention that some newer spherical powders don't burn dirty at the pressures they're designed to work at--especially the Belgian-made Ramshots. While many powder manufacturers are pretty closed-mouthed about their products, I am guessing the coatings on those Ramshot rifle powders are designed to burn once pressure reaches around 60,000 psi--because they do burn pretty dirty at less than around 60,000.

I've been using 43 grains of Hunter with 100 grain bullets (mostly Hornady) and 43.5 grains with 95 grain BT's. I would think I must be close to 60,000 psi as those are right at the Ramshot listed maximums. I'm getting around 2950 fps from the 22 inch barrel.

In the time it took to type that, you could have simply answered.

My 215s have purple color on the inside, the 210s are barn red.

Absolutely !!!!!!! And therein lies the biggest problem with just arbitrarily changing primers w/o starting at a guesstimated safe place.

In a "standard" rifle of less than 60 gr. of a relatively slow burning powder, I will not mess with changing to a magnum primer unless I have accuracy problems or think I might get a little more reliable ignition with a dense, ball powder in very cold conditions............but those occasions are rare.

There are no hard & fast rules, just general rules of thumb with every instance being a potential exception.

And over the years I've come to prefer the range of Federal Match primers for every type of use that I can get them for, either pistol or rifle. They've just worked most consistently, but once again there's always an exception but I don't recall one where a different primer was significantly better as MD cited above (but I'm sure he's done much more specific testing than me).............might have been one, just don't specifically remember one.

If I can't get Fed Match, then I'll settle for standards.

Just my view of the world.

MM

We used std primers in magnums when that's all that was made.

JOC didn't have magnum primers for his famous 4831 loads.

They went bang and killed just fine.

Another solution in search of a problem.

The “problem “ as you may recall is a dwindling supply of standard primers coupled with an excess supply of magnum primers

That is not a "problem" except in the minds of anal retentives.

All LR primers will fire all powder charges as they have forever.

Are you saying Federal was full of it when they brought out the 215 primer for the 378 weatherby?

I'm a perfectionist, and I admit it. It comes hand-in-hand with 150 IQ in my case. You do you, boo.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Clearly, they will fire the powder. The concern is the amount of pressure created. All LR primers do not create the same chamber pressure when all other variables are held constant.

Or result in the same accuracy....

Plus, in my low-temperature experiments SOME standard primers have resulted in hang-fires or even misfires. A lot depends on the powder, but obviously Riddler/Troll has never done much testing along those lines....

Riddler = Larry Root. 'Nuff said.

Yep--who knows everything, including how to "lift" images of rifles from the Internet that he's never owned--yet somehow shoots half-inch groups with 'em!

In the Norma Reloading Manual Vol.2 they use WLRM in all LR primer applications, even in rounds like the 250 Savage.

And what is your conclusion from that?

That that is all they had at hand :-))

Just out of curiosity, were CCI200 among the some? I had issues with them lighting up some ball powders well during northern MN winters when I was living there.

zcm82,

They might have been--I'd have to look through my loading notes--but do specifically recall problems with Federal 210s.

That would be my guess as well!

Thanks. I haven't used many Fed LR, but I know the CCIs generally run a bit slower velocity vs WLR or Rem 9.5 with the same charges in most of the cartidges I load, so I had assumed they must be a bit milder primers compared to the others.

I pretty much went to all stick powders after I had that happen, too. I generally run mild to middling loads in my LR stuff, so ball can get kind of froggy, anyway.

Yep!

WLRs are probably the hottest American "standard" large rifle primer. Have used them with very good results with spherical powders in a number of "standard" cartridges with a case capacity of 50-60 grains, even in cold weather.

But extruded powders with milder primers work just as well in the same rounds.....

Just for grins, let's see those lifted images of the rifles claimed to be owned as well as pics of the 1/2" groups.

"Better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and prove you are a fool" (and liar)

Yeah, I use a lot of WLR, but have a few pet loads with the CCIs. A4064 seems to really favor the 200s in most of the cartridges I've used it in. IMR3031 has responded well to them for a few things, too.

Still waiting for stolen pics and 1/2" group.

Could a guy with 56,000 posts possibly be wrong ? Taken in by the troll patrol ?

"The world waits."

"Stolen" right off my iPhone !







LOL !!!

If only there were a way to inspect image properties.

My 300 Win Mag target rifle load uses Federal 210 Match, easily lights off ~80gns of H-1000 at sub zero temperatures.

Now that primers are in short supply I took a 0.7 moa @540 yards 5 shot group load and directly substituted Remington 9 1/2 Mag primers that are ~32 years old ( I have several thousand left over from the previous primer shortage).

The 5 shot group is slightly better or at least the same , as conditions will alter the group size somewhat day to day. A sample of one to be sure.

As others have stated , build the load around the primer and other components.

Because of cold weather , Mag primers are used in hunting loads in 30-06 and up.

This thread has been quiet a little while but a few questions come to mind. The shortage in reloading components has pushed me, like many others, to revise loads, use different powders, primers, etc. I found this brisance comparison chart and have some questions:



Few questions - not sure when this data was recorded but the question is whether this has changed over time. Also, I notice the chart includes SD values for brisance - has anyone found whether that corresponds with SD in load velocity or accuracy?

I agree with you a lot of times. However, the example MD gave with groups going from good to bad, or vise versa is because he switched primers on a load with the same charge weight. What he did was change the accuracy node because pressure and velocity changed. Thus affecting barrel harmonics. This is why we work up loads in the first place. To find the load the rifle likes. That is the "hard and fast" rule that everyone here should get, but goes over a lot of guys' heads. If more guys loaded for OCW. I'm hoping guys know wtf that is, they would find handloading and finding accuracy pretty fn easy.

How many samples were used for each SD estimate?

That's a great question and not one I can answer. I've never really bothered to compare primers in the past, always just used CCI and never [over]thought about primer differences in the past. I found the chart to be interesting and wondered if it jives with what others have found over the years, either by directly testing primers or inferred from load velocity or accuracy.

Don't know if you've ever actually read what happened in my experiment in the .220 Swift, but the average muzzle velocity only rose 44 fps between the standard and magnum primers. No doubt the pressure changed--but I doubt the "accuracy node" had much to do with it. I'd experimented considerably with various charges of the same powder and "standard" primers," and the best it would do was a little over 1.5" with the same loads using standard primers.

I also tried varying powder charges after that, but the magnum primer consistently resulted in smaller groups. And the reason I tried the magnum primer was the ballistic lab folks at Western Powders suggested it, since they tended to get more consistent results with magnums as well.

Which is exactly what I've found with various spherical powders in shooting a BUNCH of such "experiments" over the decades. Sometimes primer choice also makes a big difference with extruded powders as well--you might also look up my experiments with 200-grain Nosler Ballistic Tips and Reloder 15 in the .338 Winchester Magnum. But in general they make more difference with spherical rather than extruded powder, because extruded powders tend to ignite easier--though as with anything in reloading there are exceptions.

Thanks MD - I would say your .220 Swift test, finding only 44fps increase between loads with standard/magnum primers answer most of my questions. The chart seems to rank primer brisance roughly as most people seem to report. E.g. WLR quite a bit "hotter" than CCI, Rem, etc. Close to the magnums. The BR primers seem to have SDs on the lower range but sometimes similar to other non-BR primers.

I'm not advocating for the data in this chart but thought it might make for interesting discussion. I can't vett the data in any way and have no idea where it came from originally or who did the testing. I lifted it from here:

Brisance Chart

I use Magnum primers in several different hunting loads. when I've seen a difference to speak of it's been no more than 50 ft per second or so. but it has been mentioned it may change the amount of powder to hit your accuracy mark.

I have been using magnum primers in small cases for years. Pressure testing has shown that with some powders switching from a standard to magnum primer makes no difference. And sometimes makes a large difference. As a kind of loose rule of thumb, ball powders work better with a hotter primer. The older IMR powders, IMR4198, IMR4895, IMR7828, etc, seem to light off just fine with a standard primer. I remember doing some pressure testing on a customers 264 Win mag I built. We were running IMR7828. We started with WLRM, then GM215M, then GM210, then ended with GM155M. Then compared the data. The GM155M worked just as well as the others in every measurable way. And several of these loads were in the 70,000 psi range. And some in the 50,000 psi range.
My testing has shown/proven to me this fact: you wont know until you try.
Charlie

"My testing has shown/proven to me this fact: you wont know until you try."

Exactly....