The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 20, 2013, 05:42 PM   #26
4runnerman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: Minnsota
Posts: 2,659
Reynolds-- read post 17 . Cups are not the same. Why do you keep saying that?.
The same as far as large and small primers, magnum primers have a thicker cup.

Also read post 22. last paragraph.

high pressure loads, such as we use in F class require a magnum or BR primer.
No and i repeat for you--NO standard primer will work. you will puncture a hole in the primer period.
__________________
NRA Certified RSO
NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional

Last edited by 4runnerman; August 20, 2013 at 05:51 PM.
4runnerman is offline  
Old August 20, 2013, 07:35 PM   #27
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 1,907
The thickness of large rifle magnum and std cups is .027" in Fed. CCI, Rem. and Win. Regardless of Benchrest or non benchrest, magnum or standard; they are all the same.
It is only in small rifle that the thickness varies. How common is a small rifle magnum primer? Cup thickness does not vary on large rifle.
The orig. post was about a .270Winchester. That means we are discussing large rifle primers.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old August 20, 2013, 09:13 PM   #28
4runnerman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: Minnsota
Posts: 2,659
reyonlds--You have me there, Did not catch that part. Sorry about that. It is only small rifle primers that vary as you stated. My applogies
__________________
NRA Certified RSO
NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional
4runnerman is offline  
Old August 20, 2013, 09:28 PM   #29
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 1,907
No problem. It did not occur to me until I re-read where you had posted thicknesses that you were discussing small rifle and I was discussing large rifle.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old August 20, 2013, 09:44 PM   #30
Ole 5 hole group
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2002
Location: South of Winnipeg
Posts: 177
Rifle primers, look here:http://www.jamescalhoon.com/primers_and_pressure.php

Now for match primers - they are different, not by much, but they are more uniform and consistent. Same principle as bullets - 1st off new dies are more consistent and uniform and sold at higher prices as Match Grade. For those needing everything as close to perfection as possible - well, they gladly spend their money for Match Grade.

In precision rifle shooting there have been many studies done with super-fast cameras and everything imaginable relative to bullets and primers and in most studies they show the Match Grade stuff is better. I seriously doubt you'll ever see a top flight competitor using anything but Match Grade, whether commercial or rolling his own.
Ole 5 hole group is offline  
Old August 21, 2013, 08:12 AM   #31
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Now for match primers - they are different, not by much, but they are more uniform and consistent.
Other than manufacturer saying so, you know this how? What tests of consistency have you seen comparing match primers to standard primers? I have seen the advertisements of how they set aside time and "most experienced/skilled workers", to make the match primers, but did not see anything that would me believe that the end product is more uniform only could be more uniform.

Quote:
For those needing everything as close to perfection as possible - well, they gladly spend their money for Match Grade.
I only use Federal Match Primers...for all my large rifle applications. I cannot attest to their uniformity over standard, but the price difference is not high enough to keep me from buying them, so I use them just in case it is not just a marketing ploy.
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?
dahermit is offline  
Old August 21, 2013, 08:14 AM   #32
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 9,998
There seems to be an awful lot of generalization that doesn't apply in every case.


Magnum primers:

The main purpose is to make more gas than a standard primer. When you ignite a powder, especially a slow powder, it can extinguish if the starting pressure isn't high enough. In a large magnum case there is more total air space between grains and around them, so the magnum primer is designed to make enough gas to adequately pressurize it. This also makes magnum primers a better choice in some standard cases if you are using a load that doesn't fill the case well, because the magnum primer better pressurizes the extra empty space. I recommended this to a fellow shooting .30-06 Garand loads with about 75-80% case fill at the CMP forum, and his groups were significantly improved.

There are two ways to get a primer to make more gas. You can increase the quantity of your standard primer priming composition or you can make a new mix that has more fuel in it, but no additional sensitizer, which will be a lower brissance mix and can run cooler. There are often now aluminum particles or other material added to throw glowing sparks from the primer to help ignite heavy deterrents. Alan Jones said that at CCI they had altered their magnum primer mix in 1989 to better ignite the spherical powders then available. (Western Powder says the more modern deterrent coating formulations on the Ramshot line are easier to ignite and don't require a magnum primer.)

Because of the variables in priming mixes and case volumes, Hartmut Broemel points out there are some scenarios in which lower peak pressure results from using magnum primers. For example, when a primer makes enough pressure to cause the bullet to unseat earlier in the powder burn. This causes premature expansion which can actually retard pressure build up. It is usually associated with erratic ignition and muzzle velocities. It is a common problem in the small capacity .22 Hornet that even standard primers are not mild enough and it can sometimes require pistol primers to give best accuracy. The issue also comes up in some pistol rounds even with standard pistol primers. The bottom line seems to be not to try to shove too much primer pressure into small case capacities.

Can magnum primers make higher pressure? They can sometimes do that too. IIRC, in the March-April 2006 issue of Handloader, Charles Petty ran the same 24 grain load of Reloader 10X under a 55 grain V-max bullet in his .223 Cooper Phoenix using different primers. The velocity went from about 3150 fps using Federal 205 (standard) primers to 3300 fps using, I think it was, the Remington 7½ BR match primers. I've forgotten for certain, and can't seem to lay my hands on my copy of the article at the moment. The 205M match primer was also tried and, again IIRC, was next faster after the 205 and produced slightly lower velocity standard deviation, but both were exceptional in this regard. It seems to me the accuracy was no better at 100 yards. The high velocity producing primer had the worst standard deviation, but at 100 yards produced the best accuracy.

(3300/3150)²=1.098 or about 10% higher kinetic energy was in the 3300 fps load. Kinetic energy is proportional to average pressure in the bore (acquired energy=work done on the bullet; force times distance). Since the powder is fast enough to burn completely in the barrel, the muzzle pressure won't be significantly different (a little more due to more primer gas, as little less due to larger pressure gradient behind a faster bullet). So, pretty much that whole 10% increase in the average pressure will be due to what happens at the peak end of the pressure curve only, so the peak pressure was probably up by about 20%. (I went and checked this in QuickLOAD adjusting the RL 10X burn rate to provide both velocities in a 24" tube and got peak pressures of 44759 psi and 53712 psi in a case with 31.5 grains as-fired water capacity, or just about exactly a 20% peak pressure increase. Muzzle pressures were within 2% of one another.) As to accuracy, the higher peak and bullet velocity result in shorter barrel time (1.005 ms vs. 1.086 ms in QuickLOAD), and the barrel time for the faster load was probably just falling on a muzzle deflection phase sweet spot that the slower loads missed. In other words, it tuned the load to something more favorable for that barrel.

I hate working from memory on Petty's stuff and if I can figure out what I did with the article, will post any corrections.


Cup thickness:

This is another variable. The James Calhoun article Ole 5 Hole Group linked to is the only one I recall, and it's from 1995. That's the one showing all large rifle primers with the same cup thickness and small rifle primers varying, and includes the Federal 200 magnum pistol primer having the same cup thickness as a standard small rifle primer from the same maker. But that's an 18 year old article, now. One of the things Alan Jones points out it that primers are changed without notice. An example from closer to that time is when Winchester stopped putting nickel plating on their primers for awhile because of sensitivity complaints. Then the complaints went the other way and they put it back. The thickness and hardness of the two forms would not have been the same. I also have some FC headstamp match cases from back then in .308 whose large primers were not plated. I also expect the Wolf and Tula and S&B and any other primers from the other side of the pond to be some metric thickness that doesn't quite match Calhoun's table, either.

When CCI came out with their military sensitivity spec primers, the #41 and #34 primers, they started with their magnum primers as the base, then devised a shorter anvil with a larger angle between the legs of the tripod to cut down sensitivity. When Federal decided to come out with a non-magnum small rifle match primer with military sensitivity for the AR, I inquired and got an email saying it was done by putting the 205M mix into a thicker cup. They said they did not mess with anvil to make the 205MAR. We know from CCI's experience that simply going to a magnum cup was not enough to hit military spec, so I'm expecting the 205MAR cup to be even thicker. Unfortunately, the shortage has prevented me from getting my hands on any to make a measurement. Nonetheless, we know it's a standard strength primer with a thicker cup than the Calhoun table shows for other standard strength small rifle primers.

Calhoun points out there can be a large range of hardness difference in the brass cups based on how hey work it in manufacturing. However, since increasing hardness decreases ductility, I expect the various makers use a fairly similar hardness compromise to be able to withstand deep firing pin impressions without piercing and also to withstand pressure without piercing.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Patron Member

Last edited by Unclenick; August 21, 2013 at 08:22 AM. Reason: typo fixes
Unclenick is offline  
Old August 21, 2013, 08:19 AM   #33
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
In precision rifle shooting there have been many studies done with super-fast cameras and everything imaginable relative to bullets and primers and in most studies they show the Match Grade stuff is better.
The subject was "match grade primers", not match grade "stuff". You can measure and weigh match bullets at home to determine how consistent they are, but a lot of you guys seem to want to accept on faith (or manufacture advertising), that match primers are actually more consistent. So, do not tell us about those "studies", provide links to them (match vs. standard primer studies) so that we may see for ourselves. One actual study is worth 1000 opinions or worth 10,000 statements of, "most studies have shown", without providing the links.
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?
dahermit is offline  
Old August 21, 2013, 09:03 AM   #34
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 1,814
Quote:
The subject was "match grade primers", not match grade "stuff".

....and the question was not of their construction, but if standard primers were safe to use in cold weather and whether they would drastically change the performance of the OP's loads if he changed to standard primers.

IMHO, the answers are yes to the first and no to the second. While I would want to shoot a few rounds to make sure my zero was still the same(as I always do after changing a component), I doubt that any difference in accuracy at hunting ranges and targets would be significant.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old August 21, 2013, 12:22 PM   #35
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 1,907
Buck actually the question was if "match" primers, not "std" primers, were safe to use in cold weather hunting situations.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old August 21, 2013, 01:46 PM   #36
Ole 5 hole group
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2002
Location: South of Winnipeg
Posts: 177
Well, I guess you either trust the people who are consistently in the money at all State, Regional or National Matches to know what’s best for their particular hardware or you don’t.

As to "prove it" - no, you disprove what has been stated, since you seem to challenge everything and if someone thinks commercial Match primers are or might be hand made - well, I guess that says something right there???.

As Unclenick advised “Alan Jones points out it that primers are changed without notice.” Soooo, maybe all my reading on the subject over the years is for not – but I doubt that, as most major players are still using match components.

Now as to “What tests of consistency have you seen comparing match primers to standard primers” – I sure as hell can’t remember title & verse and I’m not about to do anyone else’s leg-work – but I did take a little time and looked through a few issues of Precision Shooting Magazine that I possess and found an excellent article pretty quickly and stopped looking for more articles. December 1985 – Page 22 – Primer Test. Conclusion at that time for small rifle: Uniformity results #1 CCI-BR4, #2 Fed 205M, #3 Fiocchi SR, #4 Remington 71/2.

Precision Shooting shut down after more than 50 years as being one of the best sources for accurate shooting attested to by the benchrest crowd. With some peoples' attitude, I get the impression they probably never subscribed to that particular magazine or even heard of it or the many nationally ranked benchrest shooters contributing the articles – so maybe their research, studies, experience etc won’t be of any value to you – if so, so be it.

The OP asked a pretty simply question - "Would a match primer be safe to use in a hunting round for a .270 in the northeast, it does get cold up here."
Answer - Yes.

Last edited by Ole 5 hole group; August 21, 2013 at 01:55 PM.
Ole 5 hole group is offline  
Old August 21, 2013, 02:49 PM   #37
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Answer - Yes.
And coming from you, that is good enough for me.
So many logical fallacies...so little time.
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?

Last edited by dahermit; August 21, 2013 at 02:56 PM.
dahermit is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11782 seconds with 10 queries