The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 29, 2012, 04:07 PM   #1
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,295
which primer ?

If CCI # 400 primers were out of stock which other primer would you buy ?
rebs is offline  
Old October 29, 2012, 04:23 PM   #2
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,494
What are you shooting it in? What powder and how much.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
Unclenick is offline  
Old October 29, 2012, 07:34 PM   #3
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,295
I am shooting them in 5.56 lc cases with 24.9 of H335 powder and a 55 gr bullet. With the CCI # 400's and this load I am getting 1/2 inch groups at 100 yds. My local gunshop sold me their last 1000 of the primers and said they will get more in. I just want to be prepared in case they don't.
rebs is offline  
Old October 29, 2012, 08:03 PM   #4
tkglazie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Posts: 558
Federals always go bang
tkglazie is offline  
Old October 29, 2012, 08:52 PM   #5
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,774
Wolf KVB-556M, or the TULA equivalent. Same thing as a CCI #41, but cheaper.

Jimro
__________________
"Gorsh" said Goofy as secondary explosions racked the beaten zone, "Did I do that?"

http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/
Jimro is offline  
Old October 29, 2012, 10:44 PM   #6
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 12,658
Anything but Wolf. I got so many duds with those primers.
chris in va is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 06:48 AM   #7
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,295
What about Winchester primers ? I had bought a box of 100 federals once when I couldn't get CCI's and they opened up my groups some.
Is a different primer of any other brand going to do this since you are changing one of the components of your load ?
rebs is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 06:56 AM   #8
hodaka
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2006
Location: South Texas
Posts: 1,860
Only one way to find out.

Unlike Chris, I have been very happy using the cheap Russian (Wolf, Tula) primers.
hodaka is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 07:12 AM   #9
PA-Joe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: NEPA
Posts: 745
Yes, when you change primers the group size will change.
PA-Joe is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 09:14 AM   #10
moxie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 513
Powder Valley has CCI, Win., and Fed. SRPs in stock for $26/1k. All work well for me. Take your pick. Put in a good size order of powder and primers and the hazmat and shipping charges get absorbed. Then you don't have to worry about what your LGS might or might not have, and what they will charge you. I know locally primers are running $35/1k plus 8.275% sales tax for $38. And if you buy powder in the 4-5# jugs, the savings are considerable. Check it out.

http://powdervalleyinc.com/
__________________
If you want to shoot...shoot...don't talk! Tuco

USAF Munitions 1969-1992
RVN 1972-1973
moxie is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 09:20 AM   #11
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,295
Moxie thanks for the tip, and thanks for all the other replies. I appreciate it. Locally cci 400's are 29.00 plus 8% sales tax
rebs is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 10:12 AM   #12
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,774
Chris in VA,

I can't speak for all of Wolf's line, but the KVB-556M primers have been very consistent for me. A bunch of other High Power shooters use them too for their ARs.

I'm over halfway through a sleeve of 5k KVB-556M primers I bought earlier this year, and so far no issues. With primers that probably isn't statistically significant, but the few times I've had a FTF reloading it was with a CCI.

Jimro
__________________
"Gorsh" said Goofy as secondary explosions racked the beaten zone, "Did I do that?"

http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/
Jimro is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 11:02 AM   #13
W.E.G.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2007
Location: all over Virginia
Posts: 266
DO NOT use small rifle standard primers for anything close to a max load in .223.

Use only Magnum primers for any load that is even "warm."
Otherwise, its just a matter of time before you pierce/extrude primers,
and ruin firing pins and boltfaces.

Here is my experience with CCI 400 small rifle primers in loads that were
well-within "book."







Small rifle "standard" primers are THINNER than magnum primers.
Those thin primers might be fine for your .218 Bee or some such antique.
They are useless for modern .223/5.56 application.

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

W.E.G. is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 11:12 AM   #14
W.E.G.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2007
Location: all over Virginia
Posts: 266
I'll even go so far as to say SHAME ON THE MANUFACTURERS of the thin-cupped small rifle primers for not warning buyers that those primers are unsuitable for .223/5.56 loads. At this point, I have to think that at least 50% of the small rifle primers sold to the general public are used to reload .223/5.56.
W.E.G. is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 05:03 PM   #15
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,774
If I recall correctly Remington clearly states that the 6 1/2 primer is unsuitable for 223.

Remington does not recommend this primer for use in the 17 Remington, 222 Remington, 223 Remington, 204 Ruger, 17 Remington Fireball. Use the 7-1/2 Small Rifle Bench Rest primer in these cartridges.

This 6-1/2 Small Rifle primer is primarily designed for use in the 22 Hornet.

Looking at the chart the CCI 400 is dimensionally identical to the Remington 6 1/2. Although that chart is from 1995, so it might be a tad dated.

Jimro
__________________
"Gorsh" said Goofy as secondary explosions racked the beaten zone, "Did I do that?"

http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/
Jimro is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 05:18 PM   #16
moxie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 513
If you are nervous, use the CCI #41, specifically made to be hard enough to resist slam fire. Personally, I don't load .223 "hot." About 2800fps is plenty for me.
__________________
If you want to shoot...shoot...don't talk! Tuco

USAF Munitions 1969-1992
RVN 1972-1973
moxie is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 05:34 PM   #17
W.E.G.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2007
Location: all over Virginia
Posts: 266
Quote:
If I recall correctly Remington clearly states that the 6 1/2 primer is unsuitable for 223.
After some googling, I found language to that effect for Remington primers on the Midway website.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/160...-primers-6-1-2
I found no load data or component-compatibility info on the Remington website.
If you can provide a citation to where Remington unequivocally states this on their website, or on their product packaging, I'd be much obliged if you would share.

No similar warning for Winchester product on the Midway site.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/290...-primers-6-1-2
I note that one customer mentions that experienced pierced primers with the Winchester product.
Quote:
...last time out I had two pierced primer blow-throughs. It was much unexpected...
No warning for Federal
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/953...ubv11301776634
and
http://www.federalpremium.com/ammuni...g/primers.aspx

...or for CCI
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/130...le-primers-400
and
http://www.cci-ammunition.com/produc...imer_chart.htm

Its a shame we have to find out basic, and critical, information about reloading products from "customer reviews."
W.E.G. is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 05:37 PM   #18
W.E.G.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2007
Location: all over Virginia
Posts: 266
Quote:
About 2800fps is plenty for me
Without the bullet weight and powder charge, what does velocity tell us about the "hotness" of your load?
W.E.G. is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 07:41 PM   #19
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,295
I have used CCI 400's in well over 1500 rounds of 223 and with no signs of pressure or primer damage at all. My hottest load is 24.9 of H335 with 55 grain bullets. Should I be ok to continue using them or not ? I have 900 out of a 1000 box left and I have nothing else to use them in.
rebs is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 08:45 PM   #20
Marco Califo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2011
Location: LA
Posts: 883
Personally, I switched over to CCI #41's, next time I bought primers, but not until then. They are better for auto loaders (although I most shoot bolt guns) because they have a thicker cup, which is supposed to prevent slam-fires in guns with free floating firing pins. What I noticed most was that the 400's always got imprinted by my RCBS hand primer. The #41's do too but MUCH less. They are also recommended for Ball powders, which H335 is. And, they are intended for the higher pressures of the 5.56 loads. When I was using CCI 400's I did have 20 out of 20 rounds with micro perforations in a hot load of
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.
75 gr HPBT with around 26 grns. of WC844 (surplus H335). That load was very accurate for me and I hit the 400 yard Buffalo steel plate every time. I have basically thrown out my CCI 400 loading data, and now plan on using #41's exclusively.
If you are not loading at Max load all the time, I would use up the 400's, maybe as 55 gr FMJ plinkers 25 grns H335 or less.

http://www.accurateshooter.com/cartridge-guides/223rem/
"For use in semi-automatics and AR15s, we advise. . . For maximum protection against primer piercing and slam-fires, CCI also markets the #41 military primer. . . "
__________________
........................................................

Last edited by Unclenick; October 31, 2012 at 01:05 PM. Reason: Edit to bring into compliance with the board policy on copyrighted materials.
Marco Califo is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 09:24 PM   #21
W.E.G.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2007
Location: all over Virginia
Posts: 266
Quote:
CCI 400's in well over 1500 rounds of 223 and with no signs of pressure or primer damage at all. My hottest load is 24.9 of H335 with 55 grain bullets. Should I be ok to continue using them or not ?
That is an exceedingly MILD load (only 44,105 PSI according to Quickload). Not likely it will cause any piercing problems. SAAMI max pressure is 62,366 PSI.

I dropped my usual charge weight by 2.0 grains when I wanted to use up the remainder of my thin-cupped primers.
W.E.G. is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 09:41 PM   #22
p loader
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2012
Posts: 148
I've been using CCI 450 Magnums with a pretty mild load, 22.7 of A2230 (55 grain FMJ).

Just for plinking at distances of 100 yards and closer. I still have quite a bit to learn about what combinations are good, but just wanted to share what has been working for me thus far.

Last edited by p loader; October 30, 2012 at 09:46 PM.
p loader is offline  
Old October 30, 2012, 10:34 PM   #23
Colorado Redneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2008
Location: Northeast Colorado
Posts: 1,138
Remington 6 1/2 not for 223

Here is the verbage directly from the box:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg P1030113.JPG (118.3 KB, 50 views)

Last edited by Colorado Redneck; October 30, 2012 at 10:41 PM.
Colorado Redneck is offline  
Old October 31, 2012, 08:52 AM   #24
moxie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 513
That warning about Rem. 6 1/2 is not new.

W.E.G., Sorry, but the discussion seems about plinking for the most part. I use the standard 55FMJBT for that. "Hot" for that bullet is ~3k and up, similar to factory loads and 5.56. I back off on handloads for plinking to ~2800. Shoots about the same with a bit less powder.

I just reread your question. To me, "hotness" typically relates to velocity. That's how I use the term in this context.
__________________
If you want to shoot...shoot...don't talk! Tuco

USAF Munitions 1969-1992
RVN 1972-1973
moxie is offline  
Old October 31, 2012, 01:01 PM   #25
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,494
W.E.G.,

I think you may be getting the cart before the horse. The military sets its primer specs harder than commercial. In order to ensure they will fire, they then set their firing pin energy specs a good margin above the must-fire limit of the primer spec (lowest allowed sensitivity). So when you've got a military spec gun, you have a firing pin designed to fire primers harder even than the extra hard military primers require. Commercial standard small rifle primers are designed to be able to fire even in old pre-war .22 Hornet low walls with aging springs that don't hit the primer any harder than a revolver would. Expecting those commercial primers to be able to stand up to the extra beefy military firing pin energy spec is asking a lot.

I suppose it would be good if standard primers came with a warning that they aren't up to military firing pins. Perhaps as the military spec primers become more popular, that will happen. In the meantime, being aware of the problem and using a military hardness primer is the best route to avoid trouble. Three brands are now available in small rifle size (see below).


Marco,

Actually the #41 cups are not thicker. CCI told me they are standard CCI 450 (small rifle magnum) primers with a shorter anvil inserted to reduce their sensitivity to the military spec.

I don't know whether TulAmmo's KVB556M primers use a thicker cup or a shorter anvil or some other kind of sensitivity reduction mechanism. They are NATO spec and are also a magnum primer like the CCI #41. These primers tend to be harder to seat than standard primers, so in some case brands it pays to swage or ream their primer pocket profiles uniform even if they were never crimped before using the Russian primers. This is so that you don't leave them high by mistake. That's what creates duds. I also don't know personally whether Wolf sells those KVB-556M primers or not, as their part numbers don't indicate whether their small rifle magnum primer, part number NCSRM, are the KVB-223M (standard sensitivity magnum primer) or the KVB-556M (NATO sensitivity primer). If you bought a case of 5,000, the Russian part number is likely on the label (as it is with the TulAmmo brand). If that's what you have it would be good to know which one it is.

The new (this year) entry into the game is the Federal GMM205MAR. This is the only one for the AR that is not a magnum primer, but uses the same priming mix as the GMM205M. ("M" means "Match" in Federal terminology, where it means "Magnum" in KVB terminology speak.) It uses a thicker cup instead of a shorter anvil to control sensitivity. I got this information from Federal.

Anyway, any one of those primers are fine from the standpoint of firing pin energy and whether or not it is floating.

Please take the time to read the forum policy on posting copyrighted material. Anything posted on another site is automatically copyrighted under current copyright law.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
Unclenick 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 07:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12451 seconds with 8 queries