Update to 454 Casull Primer Hell No Boom (closed unfortunately)

markb5446 · October 12, 2014, 09:46 AM

Hello
A couple years ago I opened a thread about the 454 Casull reloading and problems with igniting primers in 3 454 Revolvers and a Rossi 454 rifle. About half of the primers would go off, and about half of the rest would go off on next strike. The problem is the spec. I have learned that you should not use Small Rifle Magnum Primers in 454 Casull. You should use Small Rifle (not magnum) primers. I have found this out from other discussions and more importantly, tables of handload data. It turns out that even though the original spec is for small rifle Magnum primers, nobody who actually reloads uses them. All reload data (from actual reloaders of this caliber) use the Remington 7.5 or CCI 400, NEITHER of which is a Magnum primer.

A suggestion for this forum: There were several "You are doing something wrong and I use them" responses. All of which were wrong. More importantly, those responses did not do other reloaders of this caliber any service of assistance. That only propagates the problem to more reloaders who have to find this out the hard way. I think it would be best for those who don't even reload for 454 not to assume the role of Guru.

List or 454 firearms which failed to ignite Small Rifle Magnum Primers: Ruger Super Redhawk, Taurus Raging Bull, Magnum Research BFR, Rossi 92 454 Rifle (2 of them). All stock without mods. Since switching to non-magnum small rifle primers (Rem 7.5), not one failure.

Thanks

flyguy958 · October 12, 2014, 11:15 AM

I don't know what the problem was, but i can offer this bit of information.
If striking the primer a second time makes it go boom, most likely the primer was not seated.

I had this problem with some Tula primers. I thought I had them seated, but had problems with them lighting on the first strike. A second strike would most likely make a boom.

What I learned: Some primers are easy to seat (Federal, Winchester). Some primers are harder to seat (CCI). Some primers are very difficult to seat (Tula).

You did not mention the brand of primer used, improper seating could have been the problem.

Snyper · October 12, 2014, 03:25 PM

Quote:

A suggestion for this forum: There were several "You are doing something wrong and I use them" responses.

All of which were wrong.

More importantly, those responses did not do other reloaders of this caliber any service of assistance. That only propagates the problem to more reloaders who have to find this out the hard way. I think it would be best for those who don't even reload for 454 not to assume the role of Guru.

There is lots of data available showing both magnum and regular small rifle primers, as well as small pistol primers.

I tend to agree with the idea the problem is most likely the seating and not the type

Quote:

All reload data (from actual reloaders of this caliber) use the Remington 7.5 or CCI 400, NEITHER of which is a Magnum primer.

That's simply not true, as a search for data will quickly reveal.
Here's just one example:
http://www.realguns.com/loads/454casull.htm

Quote:

Ruger Super Redhawk Standard Max COL: 1.765"
Bullet Diameter: 0.452" Primer: *CCI 450
Barrel: 7.50" Reloading Dies: Lee Precision
Max case length: 1.383" Group distance: 3 Shot 50 yards

markb5446 · October 12, 2014, 04:16 PM

No the primers were seated correctly. The small rifle primers didn't just magically know to go in further when I used the exact same tool in the exact same way to seat them. I found information that Freedom Arms struggled with this issue also, and dumped the small rifle magnum primers for Remington 7.5s

And the statement about "if striking the primer again makes the round fire, then it must be a primer seating issue" is completely wrong. Anyone who has fired surplus ammo (7.62x25, 9x18, etc) has experienced 2nd strikes making the round fire. This is because the primers are hard and statistically you a high probability that the 2nd strike will fire the round. That is true until the primer is dented so far that the firing pin can't reach it, or the force is too low after the travel compresses the firing pin return spring.

Have you forgotten the most important advantage of a hammer fire pistol over a striker fire pistol??? It's because second strikes have a good chance of working, not always great, but at least it is one more chance. And the first misfire is not because of a poorly seated primer. It is because it was either too hard, or production control issues.

Unless a person got lucky and bought a soft batch of magnum small rifle primers, anyone who reloads for this caliber will learn this lesson. Maybe if they had a custom 454 Casull bolt action rifle made for about $5000, then small rifle magnum primers would work. It is possible that if you have an old box of small rifle magnum primers, that they could work, as the primer manufacturers may have increased the stiffness of the cups due to litigation over some guy that them in a lever gun with spire bullets.

Bottom line is all the load data I see at Handloads.com show CCI 400 and Rem 7.5s, and anyone reloading for this caliber will benefit from this post and not the baloney in the "poorly seated primer" post

markb5446 · October 12, 2014, 04:19 PM

I may try a CCI 450, the overwhelming majority of reload data is non-magnum small rifle primers. I did try a CCI small rifle primer first, results were 50% failure rate with CORRECTLY seated primers.

I tried one box of CCI (not sure of number), then Federal, and then Remington, NO luck. I checked primer seating profusely, and none of the primers were reliable in either a Ruger Super Redhaw, Taurus Raging Bull, Magnum Reasearch BFR, or Rossi 92's (2 of them).

markb5446 · October 12, 2014, 04:28 PM

Another question... If small rifle magnum primer were reliable in 454 Casull loads, Why are the majority of the loads found in load data resources using Remington 7.5 and CCI 400 (non magnum primers)?

Why would the majority ignore the spec? Why did Freedom Arms ignore the spec??? Maybe its because they made a bunch of ammo that failed to fire 50 percent of the time

That makes for a really bad day.

flyguy958 · October 12, 2014, 07:00 PM

It was just friendly advise, if you chose not to accept it, doesn't hurt my feelings.

Everyone is correct, until proven wrong. Have a great day!

skizzums · October 12, 2014, 09:53 PM

sounds feasible. glad you got it to work. now chillax and have a beer. what makes you wanna come back after two years and tell us how wrong everyone was. sorry you didn't get the right answer, geez, you weren't paying anyone, just getting ideas, right?

Salmoneye · October 13, 2014, 05:50 AM

So what exactly are you saying OP?

Is it your contention that the primers you are touting as your savior are 'taller' than the ones you are poo-poo'ing?

I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the poo-poo'ed primers work for many other people in this and other applications, yet they magically are incompatible with the 454...

TimSr · October 13, 2014, 09:59 AM

I have been loading .454 since the 80's I have used exclusively CCI Small Rifle MAGNUM primers in in Freedom Arms brass, firing from my Freedom Arms .454 Casull revolver, and NEVER had a misfire.

I do have a theory as to why you may have had different results.

When I bought this gun, there was only one make/model gun that would shoot this round. Freedom Arms. There was only one company who made ammo for it. Freedom Arms. There was only one company who made brass for it. Freedom Arms. At that time, there was only one company who made bullets for it. Freedom Arms.

I noticed none of your guns were Freedom Arms. I will say I'm surprised your rflies would not ignite a magnum rifle primer. I am gonna go out on a limb and suggest that the problems you experienced only became an issue when other makers starting putting out guns for this round, and other companies started making ammo and components.

Snyper · October 13, 2014, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Another question... If small rifle magnum primer were reliable in 454 Casull loads, Why are the majority of the loads found in load data resources using Remington 7.5 and CCI 400 (non magnum primers)?

Most loads in most cartridges don't NEED a magnum primer

The fact they aren't used in a specific load doesn't mean they won't work

Quote:

I found information that Freedom Arms struggled with this issue also, and dumped the small rifle magnum primers for Remington 7.5s

Got a link to that information?

markb5446 · October 13, 2014, 06:19 PM

TimSR: That was a useful piece of information. It makes sense that a Freedom Arms revolver would ignite them. They made ammunition for 454 Casull and I read in a forum that they had problems with ignition of SRM primers. I suspect Freedom Arms either used a heavier hammer spring (and hammer?), and/or refined the shape of the firing pin, so that their revolvers could set off the magnum primers. That is something that even my Rossi 92's rifles couldn't do. The Rossi's could set them off closer to 80 percent of the time though. It was the 3 revolvers that were 50 percent reliable, none of which were a Freedom Arms.

At some point Freedom Arms switched to Remington 7.5 small rifle "bench rest" primers for their 454 ammunition. As far as I know, they don't make 454 Casull ammo anymore, but I found their load data on the net, which is why I switched to the 7.5s. It is possible that the ammo industry started making primers harder for safety (who's safety? The bear that is chasing you?)

It was about 2-3 years ago that I had primer problems, but I don't remember which of the 3 magnum primers I tried went through the BFR. I got the BFR as I was solving this issue. I may try the magnums again in the BFR, but not the SRH, TRB or Rossi 92s. The BFR has a nice big heavy hammer like the Freedom Arms.

The only reason I want to try magnum primers again is because I know its best to use magnum pistol primers with H110, but small rifle primers may be fine with H110. They seem to be fine in my loads.

Also, the criticism of Ruger for the transfer bar and not updating the firing pin for 454 Casull was also very good info. That made sense, and I would like to get close up pics of Freedom Arms firing pins vs Ruger's. I remember that the dents in the primers that did not go boom were not sharp looking. I wonder if a Freedom Arms firing pin could fit a BFR?

Anyway, that was useful info

Salmoneye · October 14, 2014, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Also, the criticism of Ruger for the transfer bar and not updating the firing pin for 454 Casull was also very good info.

Where was this mentioned in this thread?

WIL TERRY · October 14, 2014, 04:42 PM

I DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU GOT YOUR INFORMATION but the RP 7 1/2 primer is indeed a small rifle magnum primer and always has been, and always will be!!!!!!
FURTHERMORE you contention that your problems were caused by SMALL RIFLE MAGNUM PRIMERS is purely balogna with OUT a single atom of truth in it : NONE !!!
AND my information came out of a ballistics laboratory, SIR.
And so it goes...

markb5446 · October 14, 2014, 05:46 PM

WRONG Again. I have a box of them right in front of me. The Remington 7.5 is a "Small Rifle Benchrest Primer". These are intended for high accuracy bench rest shooting in Non-Magnum cartridges. Go look it up.

Anyway, I am going with the "Firing Pin Theory." Ruger, Taurus, Rossi (err I guess that is Taurus also), may not have optimized the firing pin shape for use with extra hard magnum primers. Freedom Arms is reported to have done so... But then Freedom Arms switched to Remington 7.5 Small Rifle Benchrest primers in their production ammunition (which they don't make anymore). Maybe F.A. still had issues with the SRMPs. It may be that small rifle magnum primers are only completely reliable in bolt action rifles. That makes sense.

Freedom Arms could have chosen the CCI primers, which costs less, but instead used the Remington primers. Maybe they found they worked better with H110, which Freedom Arms used in their production ammo.

markb5446 · October 14, 2014, 06:19 PM

The reference to the Ruger transfer bar was in the previous thread with same name (without anything in parentheses) from 2 years ago. A person wrote that they believe the transfer bar makes the hammer strike less consistent. I believe that. Those things flop around in there, not always landing in exact same place. It is another source of variance in hammer strike.

He also brought up the fact that Ruger (and Taurus I think), did not modify the shape or design of the firing pin between the 44 mag SuperRedhawks and the 454 Super Redhawk. He made the point that since the small rifle primer is smaller and stiffer than a large primer (pistol or rifle), that the firing pin nose should have been adjusted. That makes sense because if you have 2 steel discs, and dimensions and material are same except diameter, the smaller diameter disc will be stiffer. The increase of stiffness as diameter is reduced is even greater than the inverse ratio of the diameters. I could look up the function but I believe it is a square or cubic factor.

This is why I would like to find info on the Freedom Arms firing pin. They put a lot of time into this cartridge from what I have read. I am starting to move to 450 Bushmaster. If only Magnum Research made a 450 Bushmaster BFR

Hey anyone at Magnum Research reading... I don't mind moon clips

Note - According to feedback at Midway USA, the Federal Small Rifle Primer has better reviews than the Remington 7.5. Need to try those.

Mike / Tx · October 14, 2014, 06:21 PM

I guess I missed yours and the other memo's and post on the magnum primer issue in the 454 as well. My Raging Bull has been steadily and reliably setting them off for the past 5 or 6 years I have owned it.

When I first got it I was using the Wolf SR Mag in a 260gr Mag JHP loaded with 296. Then when I started shooting cast I used them and the Win SR both of which have had zero FTF's. Now that I am casting my own I use the WIn SR mainly because the AA-9 load I shoot with the Lee 453 300 RF shoots so well I see no need to change it up. The JHP loads however still use the Wolf SRM.

I am also using Starline cases exclusively and have not seen a reason to change those either.

Not calling you crazy by any means but I totally disagree with your post being all inclusive.

jinxer3006 · October 14, 2014, 09:30 PM

Quote:

the original spec is for small rifle Magnum primers

Apparently my Google-foo is not working today. Can you direct me to a source for this?

Snyper · October 14, 2014, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Apparently my Google-foo is not working today. Can you direct me to a source for this?

Freedom Arm's site suggests using magnum rifle primers, but the data they list shows Bench Rest primers

http://www.freedomarms.com/loading.html

Quote:

TIP #1:Magnum primers are recommended for reloading for the 454 Casull.TM
Magnum primers perform more reliably at temperatures below zero degrees F..

Magnum primers will most often give more uniform velocities in magnum pistol loads using slow powders, and heavy bullets. More importantly the heavier construction of the primer cup prevents metal flow back, and provides a more positive ignition.

Remember to always seat the primer below the case head to prevent recoil from firing the cartridge while not aligned with the barrel.

TimSr · October 15, 2014, 10:58 PM

I looked through the paperwork from my Freedom Arms Revolver including the reloading data that came with it.

FA's data is shown using Remington 7 1/2 primers. The way i understand it, Remington has no "small rifle magnum primers". The 6 1/2 and 7 1/2 are both small rifle primers. The 7 1/2 has a thicker cup. The 6 1/2 is designed for the lower power small bores.

I bought the Speer #10 manual specifically because it was the first to have any data for .454 Casull. According to Speer #10, the earliest brass originally used large primers, and Speer called for CCI 250 primers for those, and CCI 450 in the small pocketed brass. The Freedom Arms data sheet makes no mention of large primer pockets. As I said, I have only used CCI 450's in my Casull loads.

October 12, 2014, 11:15 AM	#2
flyguy958 Senior Member Join Date: June 27, 2009 Location: SC Posts: 200	I don't know what the problem was, but i can offer this bit of information. If striking the primer a second time makes it go boom, most likely the primer was not seated. I had this problem with some Tula primers. I thought I had them seated, but had problems with them lighting on the first strike. A second strike would most likely make a boom. What I learned: Some primers are easy to seat (Federal, Winchester). Some primers are harder to seat (CCI). Some primers are very difficult to seat (Tula). You did not mention the brand of primer used, improper seating could have been the problem. __________________ You can have your own opinion but you can't make up your own facts !

October 12, 2014, 07:00 PM	#7
flyguy958 Senior Member Join Date: June 27, 2009 Location: SC Posts: 200	It was just friendly advise, if you chose not to accept it, doesn't hurt my feelings. Everyone is correct, until proven wrong. Have a great day! __________________ You can have your own opinion but you can't make up your own facts !

October 12, 2014, 09:53 PM	#8
skizzums Senior Member Join Date: July 1, 2013 Location: Douglasville, Ga Posts: 4,615	sounds feasible. glad you got it to work. now chillax and have a beer. what makes you wanna come back after two years and tell us how wrong everyone was. sorry you didn't get the right answer, geez, you weren't paying anyone, just getting ideas, right? __________________ My head is bloody, but unbowed

October 13, 2014, 06:19 PM	#12
markb5446 Junior Member Join Date: September 21, 2011 Posts: 9	TimSR: That was a useful piece of information. It makes sense that a Freedom Arms revolver would ignite them. They made ammunition for 454 Casull and I read in a forum that they had problems with ignition of SRM primers. I suspect Freedom Arms either used a heavier hammer spring (and hammer?), and/or refined the shape of the firing pin, so that their revolvers could set off the magnum primers. That is something that even my Rossi 92's rifles couldn't do. The Rossi's could set them off closer to 80 percent of the time though. It was the 3 revolvers that were 50 percent reliable, none of which were a Freedom Arms. At some point Freedom Arms switched to Remington 7.5 small rifle "bench rest" primers for their 454 ammunition. As far as I know, they don't make 454 Casull ammo anymore, but I found their load data on the net, which is why I switched to the 7.5s. It is possible that the ammo industry started making primers harder for safety (who's safety? The bear that is chasing you?) It was about 2-3 years ago that I had primer problems, but I don't remember which of the 3 magnum primers I tried went through the BFR. I got the BFR as I was solving this issue. I may try the magnums again in the BFR, but not the SRH, TRB or Rossi 92s. The BFR has a nice big heavy hammer like the Freedom Arms. The only reason I want to try magnum primers again is because I know its best to use magnum pistol primers with H110, but small rifle primers may be fine with H110. They seem to be fine in my loads. Also, the criticism of Ruger for the transfer bar and not updating the firing pin for 454 Casull was also very good info. That made sense, and I would like to get close up pics of Freedom Arms firing pins vs Ruger's. I remember that the dents in the primers that did not go boom were not sharp looking. I wonder if a Freedom Arms firing pin could fit a BFR? Anyway, that was useful info Last edited by markb5446; October 13, 2014 at 06:30 PM.

October 14, 2014, 06:21 PM	#17
Mike / Tx Senior Member Join Date: April 8, 2000 Posts: 2,101	I guess I missed yours and the other memo's and post on the magnum primer issue in the 454 as well. My Raging Bull has been steadily and reliably setting them off for the past 5 or 6 years I have owned it. When I first got it I was using the Wolf SR Mag in a 260gr Mag JHP loaded with 296. Then when I started shooting cast I used them and the Win SR both of which have had zero FTF's. Now that I am casting my own I use the WIn SR mainly because the AA-9 load I shoot with the Lee 453 300 RF shoots so well I see no need to change it up. The JHP loads however still use the Wolf SRM. I am also using Starline cases exclusively and have not seen a reason to change those either. Not calling you crazy by any means but I totally disagree with your post being all inclusive. __________________ LAter, Mike / TX

October 12, 2014, 09:46 AM	#1
markb5446 Junior Member Join Date: September 21, 2011 Posts: 9	Update to 454 Casull Primer Hell No Boom (closed unfortunately) Hello A couple years ago I opened a thread about the 454 Casull reloading and problems with igniting primers in 3 454 Revolvers and a Rossi 454 rifle. About half of the primers would go off, and about half of the rest would go off on next strike. The problem is the spec. I have learned that you should not use Small Rifle Magnum Primers in 454 Casull. You should use Small Rifle (not magnum) primers. I have found this out from other discussions and more importantly, tables of handload data. It turns out that even though the original spec is for small rifle Magnum primers, nobody who actually reloads uses them. All reload data (from actual reloaders of this caliber) use the Remington 7.5 or CCI 400, NEITHER of which is a Magnum primer. A suggestion for this forum: There were several "You are doing something wrong and I use them" responses. All of which were wrong. More importantly, those responses did not do other reloaders of this caliber any service of assistance. That only propagates the problem to more reloaders who have to find this out the hard way. I think it would be best for those who don't even reload for 454 not to assume the role of Guru. List or 454 firearms which failed to ignite Small Rifle Magnum Primers: Ruger Super Redhawk, Taurus Raging Bull, Magnum Research BFR, Rossi 92 454 Rifle (2 of them). All stock without mods. Since switching to non-magnum small rifle primers (Rem 7.5), not one failure. Thanks Last edited by markb5446; October 12, 2014 at 10:04 AM.

October 12, 2014, 04:16 PM	#4
markb5446 Junior Member Join Date: September 21, 2011 Posts: 9	No the primers were seated correctly. The small rifle primers didn't just magically know to go in further when I used the exact same tool in the exact same way to seat them. I found information that Freedom Arms struggled with this issue also, and dumped the small rifle magnum primers for Remington 7.5s And the statement about "if striking the primer again makes the round fire, then it must be a primer seating issue" is completely wrong. Anyone who has fired surplus ammo (7.62x25, 9x18, etc) has experienced 2nd strikes making the round fire. This is because the primers are hard and statistically you a high probability that the 2nd strike will fire the round. That is true until the primer is dented so far that the firing pin can't reach it, or the force is too low after the travel compresses the firing pin return spring. Have you forgotten the most important advantage of a hammer fire pistol over a striker fire pistol??? It's because second strikes have a good chance of working, not always great, but at least it is one more chance. And the first misfire is not because of a poorly seated primer. It is because it was either too hard, or production control issues. Unless a person got lucky and bought a soft batch of magnum small rifle primers, anyone who reloads for this caliber will learn this lesson. Maybe if they had a custom 454 Casull bolt action rifle made for about $5000, then small rifle magnum primers would work. It is possible that if you have an old box of small rifle magnum primers, that they could work, as the primer manufacturers may have increased the stiffness of the cups due to litigation over some guy that them in a lever gun with spire bullets. Bottom line is all the load data I see at Handloads.com show CCI 400 and Rem 7.5s, and anyone reloading for this caliber will benefit from this post and not the baloney in the "poorly seated primer" post

October 12, 2014, 04:19 PM	#5
markb5446 Junior Member Join Date: September 21, 2011 Posts: 9	I may try a CCI 450, the overwhelming majority of reload data is non-magnum small rifle primers. I did try a CCI small rifle primer first, results were 50% failure rate with CORRECTLY seated primers. I tried one box of CCI (not sure of number), then Federal, and then Remington, NO luck. I checked primer seating profusely, and none of the primers were reliable in either a Ruger Super Redhaw, Taurus Raging Bull, Magnum Reasearch BFR, or Rossi 92's (2 of them).

October 12, 2014, 04:28 PM	#6
markb5446 Junior Member Join Date: September 21, 2011 Posts: 9	Another question... If small rifle magnum primer were reliable in 454 Casull loads, Why are the majority of the loads found in load data resources using Remington 7.5 and CCI 400 (non magnum primers)? Why would the majority ignore the spec? Why did Freedom Arms ignore the spec??? Maybe its because they made a bunch of ammo that failed to fire 50 percent of the time That makes for a really bad day.

October 13, 2014, 05:50 AM	#9
Salmoneye Senior Member Join Date: December 31, 2011 Location: Vermont Posts: 2,076	So what exactly are you saying OP? Is it your contention that the primers you are touting as your savior are 'taller' than the ones you are poo-poo'ing? I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the poo-poo'ed primers work for many other people in this and other applications, yet they magically are incompatible with the 454...

October 13, 2014, 09:59 AM	#10
TimSr Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2013 Location: Rittman, Ohio Posts: 2,074	I have been loading .454 since the 80's I have used exclusively CCI Small Rifle MAGNUM primers in in Freedom Arms brass, firing from my Freedom Arms .454 Casull revolver, and NEVER had a misfire. I do have a theory as to why you may have had different results. When I bought this gun, there was only one make/model gun that would shoot this round. Freedom Arms. There was only one company who made ammo for it. Freedom Arms. There was only one company who made brass for it. Freedom Arms. At that time, there was only one company who made bullets for it. Freedom Arms. I noticed none of your guns were Freedom Arms. I will say I'm surprised your rflies would not ignite a magnum rifle primer. I am gonna go out on a limb and suggest that the problems you experienced only became an issue when other makers starting putting out guns for this round, and other companies started making ammo and components.

October 14, 2014, 04:42 PM	#14
WIL TERRY Senior Member Join Date: July 6, 2000 Location: BLACK HILLS Posts: 1,322	I DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU GOT YOUR INFORMATION but the RP 7 1/2 primer is indeed a small rifle magnum primer and always has been, and always will be!!!!!! FURTHERMORE you contention that your problems were caused by SMALL RIFLE MAGNUM PRIMERS is purely balogna with OUT a single atom of truth in it : NONE !!! AND my information came out of a ballistics laboratory, SIR. And so it goes...

October 14, 2014, 05:46 PM	#15
markb5446 Junior Member Join Date: September 21, 2011 Posts: 9	WRONG Again. I have a box of them right in front of me. The Remington 7.5 is a "Small Rifle Benchrest Primer". These are intended for high accuracy bench rest shooting in Non-Magnum cartridges. Go look it up. Anyway, I am going with the "Firing Pin Theory." Ruger, Taurus, Rossi (err I guess that is Taurus also), may not have optimized the firing pin shape for use with extra hard magnum primers. Freedom Arms is reported to have done so... But then Freedom Arms switched to Remington 7.5 Small Rifle Benchrest primers in their production ammunition (which they don't make anymore). Maybe F.A. still had issues with the SRMPs. It may be that small rifle magnum primers are only completely reliable in bolt action rifles. That makes sense. Freedom Arms could have chosen the CCI primers, which costs less, but instead used the Remington primers. Maybe they found they worked better with H110, which Freedom Arms used in their production ammo.

October 14, 2014, 06:19 PM	#16
markb5446 Junior Member Join Date: September 21, 2011 Posts: 9	The reference to the Ruger transfer bar was in the previous thread with same name (without anything in parentheses) from 2 years ago. A person wrote that they believe the transfer bar makes the hammer strike less consistent. I believe that. Those things flop around in there, not always landing in exact same place. It is another source of variance in hammer strike. He also brought up the fact that Ruger (and Taurus I think), did not modify the shape or design of the firing pin between the 44 mag SuperRedhawks and the 454 Super Redhawk. He made the point that since the small rifle primer is smaller and stiffer than a large primer (pistol or rifle), that the firing pin nose should have been adjusted. That makes sense because if you have 2 steel discs, and dimensions and material are same except diameter, the smaller diameter disc will be stiffer. The increase of stiffness as diameter is reduced is even greater than the inverse ratio of the diameters. I could look up the function but I believe it is a square or cubic factor. This is why I would like to find info on the Freedom Arms firing pin. They put a lot of time into this cartridge from what I have read. I am starting to move to 450 Bushmaster. If only Magnum Research made a 450 Bushmaster BFR Hey anyone at Magnum Research reading... I don't mind moon clips Note - According to feedback at Midway USA, the Federal Small Rifle Primer has better reviews than the Remington 7.5. Need to try those.

October 15, 2014, 10:58 PM	#20
TimSr Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2013 Location: Rittman, Ohio Posts: 2,074	I looked through the paperwork from my Freedom Arms Revolver including the reloading data that came with it. FA's data is shown using Remington 7 1/2 primers. The way i understand it, Remington has no "small rifle magnum primers". The 6 1/2 and 7 1/2 are both small rifle primers. The 7 1/2 has a thicker cup. The 6 1/2 is designed for the lower power small bores. I bought the Speer #10 manual specifically because it was the first to have any data for .454 Casull. According to Speer #10, the earliest brass originally used large primers, and Speer called for CCI 250 primers for those, and CCI 450 in the small pocketed brass. The Freedom Arms data sheet makes no mention of large primer pockets. As I said, I have only used CCI 450's in my Casull loads.