Are match primers worth the extra $

[BLS700]

I know I'm opening up a can of worms here but what have your experiences been with match/benchrest primers. Are they worth the extra money?

[Unclenick]

Testing in several magazine articles have shown them to be more consistent. Whether you can see the difference or not depends on how accurately you shoot and at what distance? The error they reduce is usually muzzle velocity variation. The difference is small enough, though, that it is mainly noticed by long range shooters (600 yards and beyond), IME. Benchrester shooters can probably tell in as little as 200 yards.

[Sevens]

I wish I had hands-on information to help you, but all I've got is my opinion. I think it's relative:

Whether it's better, worse, or just a different brand, one thing is for sure-- it's not the same as whatever you always use, or whatever you used to develop the load.

That's the biggest reason why I won't ever buy any match or bench rest primers. Simply put, I worked up my loads with one kind of primer (typically, it's CCI non-Mag) so that's what I buy.

Magnum primers could work, too, but I won't ever buy them. Because I worked the load up with my regular CCI, I know exactly how my loads act with those primers. I know how accurate they tend to be, I know how "hot" they are, I know how far to push them and some of them I've made hotter than I need, and I know there's no point on going back there.

I don't know if all of that or if ANY of that changes when you change primers... but I do know that NONE of it changes if you don't change primers!

[Sam06]

Yes they are.

[Creeper]

The accuracy potential of the rifle (many variables there) will determine the need for match primers.
A benchrest or match shooter will likely use nothing else, but unless your gun is a sub MOA gun... and you're a sub MOA shooter, it's doubtful you'd reap any noticeable benefit.

C

[rn22723]

That is why people reload? To exact accuracy to the nth degree. Primers do make a difference more so in the rifle then perhaps run of the mill straight walled handgun rds.....

[Wildalaska]

The difference in price is nominal

WildsogethtebestAlaska TM

[Creeper]

The point I was making is that if you have a 1.5 MOA rifle, there is not much point in using match primers.
Chances are, you have other issues that would have a greater effect were they to be corrected... or, you simply have a 1.5 MOA rifle and that's as good as it gets.

Saying that... trying match primers out, just to see what happens, is certainly worthwhile. Exceptions to every rule.

In benchrest, if a change in primer nets you a .010" reduction in average group size... that's a substantial gain, especially when you can loose a match by .001".

C

[TFL4L]

Well said Creeper.

Bottom line is, if you are using match brass, sorting by weight, trimming to same length, and uniforming primer pockets as well as turning necks, then a Match primer may be for you (assuming you also have an accurate gun).

[Unclenick]

No matter what trouble you take to avoiding letting your loads change over time, eventually you have to buy new components that don't come from the same lots you first worked your loads up with. The rule of thumb is to work loads up again whenever a component changes, and that also applies to component lot changes. Chances are good you will land where you were before, but this is a safety check and is still worthwhile. Every once in a while the manufacturers change a product.

That safety check is the time to try new components if you are going to. From what I've seen, BR primers of a given brand tend to have average performance extremely close to that of their non-BR version. So, changing to same-brand BR from the same brand, same grade (standard or magnum) non-BR is very likely to land you right back on the same load, also.

[ryalred]

I use match primers for some of my rifles and regular primers in others. The ones I'm having difficulty getting good groups with, I'll try match primers (among other things). I think it helps sometimes. Some of my other guns shoot so well with regular primers, I don't see the need for match primers in them.

[BLS700]

Sevens you and I are apparently of like mind. I've never tried them before but I decided to get a box of BR-4's to try in the .204 loads I'm starting (thanks agian for that info Unclenick). They were only 6$ more for 1000 so I decided to splurge. I figure since I do flashhole deburring and clean my primer pockets it was worth the money if they add anything accuracy wise. I've always gotten really good results with regular CCI primers so we'll see how these do. This summer I'm going to work up .308 loads and see if there are any changes. I am not a benchrest guy but consistently get sub MOA groups so I should notice a change in reference to that question.

[amamnn]

You'll do more for accuracy by ensuring that your primer pockets are REALLY uniform and that your primers are all seated all the way to the bottom and firmly.

The conventional wisdom is that BR or match primers are different from standard only in that they are inspected more carefully for uniformity of construction and charge. In fact, at least one primer maker runs a separate line using only the most experienced workers to construct BR primers. That brand is the only primer I have ever had fail to fire. I won't mention the brand because [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] happens and it happens to everyone. I will mention that I had a conversation with a Federal tech some years ago who asserted that their match primers were charged with a finer ground stryphate compound besides being held to closer tolerances. The idea was to get a milder explosion which is generally held to be better for powder ignition consistency.

Sierra will give you this same info in the extrior ballistics section of the manual and on their website. A gentleman by the name of German A. Salazar did some now famous primer tests that included photos purporting to show the strength and type of ignition to be obtained from a variety of primers. His photos seem to coroborate the finer ground stryphate claim. The tests can be seen in back issues (most recently 2008) of Precision Shooting Magazine among other places.

[wncchester]

" Are they worth the extra money?"

Bottom line, it depends on what it's worth to YOU. Try a few and see.

[Inspector3711]

I like em' for rifles... The Federal tend to be about 20 cents cheaper than regulars at the place I buy them for some reason.

[Jeffenwulf]

I just picked up a couple thousand Federal match primers today. They were only $36/1000 instead of the $34 for the regular ones, so why not? I've already had 3 roll sideways in my RCBS hand primer. I didn't even know it was possible until the first one went into the shell sideways. That was an interesting moment with a sideways primer and the shell stuck in the shell holder ... I never ran into that before with CCI primers. As far as worth it? I have no idea.

[Unclenick]

Make sure you didn't get large rifle primers for a large pistol application or vice versa? Pistol primers are shorter, so you would think they would be less likely to tip over? CCI's have a little bit harder cup. I don't know if the radius around the bottom edge is the same for both brands or not? That may affect turning sideways.

I've certainly had Federal 150 and 150M primers turn in my Dillons. Never occurred to me there was a brand issue with it.

[crowbeaner]

The only "match" primers I use are RP 7 1/2 and CCI BR4s. I give my old M700 in 222 it's candy when the weather's nice. As far as making a difference in accuracy, the rifle shoots a box of shells into a ragged hole with the RP primers and RL7, and the BR4s with BLC2 are a close second. I use CCI 400s for everyday loadings, and they shoot almost as well. Since I paid the same price for the RPs as I did the 400s, I use the RPs more. The BR4s are about $5 a thou more than the RPs, but with the load I use them in, nothing is spared in making my old Deuce sing.