Federal reformulating it's primers?

[zeke]

https://www.outdoorlife.com/cartridg...y-developments

Way beyond me.

[Unclenick]

It's coming. All lead will eventually be out of primers, though Federal says it has no plans to replace primers sold to handloaders at this time. We'll see what occurs. The problem may be, if the new mix is as much more efficient at ignition as claimed, that old load recipes may be invalid with it.

The main drawback to a nitrocellulose-based primer is that, like powder, it will eventually age and break down. Current primers are pretty indefinitely stable, as far as I know. So when these things start taking over, keep aside a few slips of the old ones for your bugout gear.

[74A95]

I recently asked Federal about the shelf life of their Catalyst primers. Their response was,

"Shelf life is the same as lead primers.

Both need to be stored properly – low humidity, dry, cool."

[NWPilgrim]

I’m all for new improvements as long as they really are better and don’t come with a 50% increase in cost. I mean, smokeless powder was a generally good improvement over black powder, so it does happen every hundred years or so!

I wonder how this might impact indoor ranges if the major cause of lead in the air is eliminated (long ways down the road). Less expensive to set up, operate and insure? I can see how anyone who operates ranges, including police and military, would like to reduce or eliminate any airborne toxins.

But there have been so many “improvements” that cost four times as much and can’t be produced in the same quantities that I am skeptical but interested.

[pete2]

I doubt that they are better, we better hope they are as good.

[Scottcc]

From researching lead exposure in the reloading process, the biggest danger is from bass tumbling. If a lead free printer is used successfully, I think it should be welcomed by all. As long as the price is not too high.

Sent from my SM-J737P using Tapatalk

[sako2]

Here is a good read about it. https://www.outdoorlife.com/cartridg...opments#page-6

[buck460XVR]

Nuttin' really new. Non-toxic primers have been around for a while already. Reason for small primers in .45ACP is so non-toxic primers could be used in factory ammo.

[9MMand223only]

Apparently, lead free primers from at least Fiocchi are not as consistent as traditional, as SD, ES and accuracy were noticeably different according to these people.

http://www.natoreloading.com/primer1/
http://www.natoreloading.com/primer/

I think its pretty great how clean they make everything, however. Look at those lead free ones. WOW

[Sequins]

If it leaves the brass too clean it might ruin the fun of wet tumbling, I think I'll stick to lead

[74A95]

Originally Posted by 9MMand223only

Apparently, lead free primers from at least Fiocchi are not as consistent as traditional, as SD, ES and accuracy were noticeably different according to these people.

http://www.natoreloading.com/primer1/
http://www.natoreloading.com/primer/

I wouldn't put much value in their results. Basing their conclusions on single 5-shot or 10-shot groups is flawed.

Accuracy, standard deviation, and extreme spread will vary even more than they found when shooting the same ammo in 15-shot strings, and with accuracy assessed with the gun in a Ransom Rest.

See this article for details: https://americanhandgunner.com/handg...ocity-accuracy

[9MMand223only]

I see, but that is not the point of that site. It looks like the point is to understand load data so people can choose what suits their needs better. Accuracy is and cannot be determined by shooting through 1 or 2 guns. It says that on their site. I think its more like..."hey..I am looking for a powder that can give me 1200 FPS in a 124 grain bullet, where do I start and what is a good powder for this"?

I think you can, however, make correlations to accuracy if you look at large group samples as you mentioned.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by 9MMand223only

I see, but that is not the point of that site. It looks like the point is to understand load data so people can choose what suits their needs better. Accuracy is and cannot be determined by shooting through 1 or 2 guns. It says that on their site. I think its more like..."hey..I am looking for a powder that can give me 1200 FPS in a 124 grain bullet, where do I start and what is a good powder for this"?

I think you can, however, make correlations to accuracy if you look at large group samples as you mentioned.

The point of the pages you posted links to are about primers and accuracy. The point of this thread is about lead free primers.

My comments still stand.

[9MMand223only]

HI, I just looked again. Looks like 10 shot groups, 3 different 10 shot groups. Thats 30 shots to sample.

Also, SD and ES are not that much of a factor in pistol shooting. If a 10 shot group does SD of 7, and a 15 shot group is 9, that means literally nothing in accuracy mathematically.

Any shot group has a correlation to accuracy, because no matter how many shots you take, the group cannot get smaller, only larger.

[Jim Watson]

I read that they developed it for a fat government contract in lead free.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by 9MMand223only

HI, I just looked again. Looks like 10 shot groups, 3 different 10 shot groups. Thats 30 shots to sample.

Also, SD and ES are not that much of a factor in pistol shooting. If a 10 shot group does SD of 7, and a 15 shot group is 9, that means literally nothing in accuracy mathematically.

Any shot group has a correlation to accuracy, because no matter how many shots you take, the group cannot get smaller, only larger.

Your reading comprehension sucks. Read it again. http://www.natoreloading.com/primer1/

The three different groups (with the same primer) are three different charge weights, AND three different bullets.

That puts it back to a single 10-shot sample.

[9MMand223only]

BTW, that link with the 15 shot groups? The method they uses is NOWHERE NEAR as precise as what natoreloading used. Nowhere near. And you can tell this from their standard deviation and extreme spread numbers.

So its 10 shot groups, 3 "different" 10 shot groups. Ill take note and remember when I do testing to shoot 15 different 15 shot groups, otherwise you won't approve and say its flawed.

BTW, 15 shot groups are flawed too, because you could do 1 group, that is 100+ shots instead huh?

[74A95]

Originally Posted by 9MMand223only

BTW, that link with the 15 shot groups? The method they uses is NOWHERE NEAR as precise as what natoreloading used. Nowhere near. And you can tell this from their standard deviation and extreme spread numbers.

Incorrect and irrelevant. We can't control the standard deviation (SD) or extreme spread (ES). It is what it is. Some powders tend to have narrow SD and ES, some powders tend to have wide SD and ES.

And the SD and ES will not be exactly the same from one 15-shot group to another even when shooting the exact same ammo. That is clearly demonstrated at the American Handgunner link.

Originally Posted by 9MMand223only

BTW, 15 shot groups are flawed too, because you could do 1 group, that is 100+ shots instead huh?

Groups can be any number of rounds, 5, 10, 20, 100, whatever. But you need more than 1 group for the test at the American Handgunner link.

A good way to be consistent with the experimental design, is to make all the groups have the same number of shots (e.g. 15), which is what the author at the American Handgunner link did.

That author was testing a specific hypothesis; is group size correlated with velocity standard deviation or extreme spread. To do this test, one needs to shoot multiple groups (samples), at least 2 for correlation statistical analysis (e.g. two 15-shot groups would be 2 samples), and the more samples you have, the more confident you are in the results from statistical analysis.

The author had two independent sets of data, one with 20 samples (twenty 15-shot groups; 300 rounds) and the other set of data had 12 samples (twelve 15-shot groups; 180 rounds).

To recap, that author found no correlation between group size and velocity SD or ES.

[9MMand223only]

Please consider this.

SD and ES was thought to not matter in that article. His ES and SD were not good, and were erratic at best. His group sizes were severely erratic in size.

This is a very important question I am about to ask.

Why does POI (point of impact) change sometimes from left to right, NOT just up and down, with different powder charges?

[74A95]

Originally Posted by 9MMand223only

Why does POI (point of impact) change sometimes from left to right, NOT just up and down, with different powder charges?

Are you asking about the http://www.natoreloading.com/primer1/ data?

[9MMand223only]

No, your personal experience.

This can be summed up simply by saying that the gunner article/test is majorly flawed because they did not use consistent components. It is nothing to say "oh, I ordered some starline brass and Zero bullets and we used that". That means nothing. What matters is the consistency OF those components, and every brand does NOT have precise consistency, so you must group it.

By just tossing a bag of bullets from a brand and a bag of brass, then just metering the powder, you are in essence tossing out the window, 3 controls.
BRass
Powder
BUllet
All 3 causes differences in pressure, thus causes SD and ES to vary. By not making all 3 of those uniform, you can't really test anything with any validity because there is no controls in place.
Same lot brass has wild variances in internal capacity.

you could do 6.2 grains power pistol in 1 case, and then 6.0 grains power pistol from the same lot of cases, and you could get the SAME velocity.

That test proves my theory they didn't have controls because the size of the groups is horrendously variable. The group sizes range all over the place and so does the SD, and ES. Of course they would, they didnt have any controls in place and all the components were not uniform.

THEN, I go over to look at the nato place, and their SD across 10 shot groups, over 100 shots total is ~4 SD? With some less than 4? The reason they got such low SD and consistency is because they have controls in place, the article you linked, did not.

The reason I ask you about POI shifts, is because you do know, everyone knows that loads, that POI shift between loads is normal. You will have POI shift from shooting 6 grains of PP and 5.8 or 6.0 grains. THUS, SD does matter, and ES matters too. Because the top of the spectrum ES shot has a totally different POI than the low end of the spectrum ES shots, etc.

That article does not account for this, and doesn't understand why bullets hit the same POI. The author I am guessing, is not a benchrest shooter and does not reload for accuracy because the test they did, I could have told you would not yield consistent results before they started. Its severely flawed from have no controls in place.

I hope that helps. When thse federal primers come out, I am sure they will be tested. And I will bet they are not as consistent as normal primers.

[74A95]

9mmand223only, the two websites are not trying to do the same thing.

The natoreloading site is testing primers. But I suggest their accuracy testing is not up to standards that would give their results any merit. Serious accuracy testing with a handgun should be done at at least 25 yards, if not fifty. They use 10 yards. Serious accuracy testing should not involve a human holding the gun, using the sights, and pulling the trigger. All of those are potential sources of error. A machine rest, such as a Ransom Rest or better yet, a barrel fixture, is the proper tool. And 10 shots is not a serious accuracy test. They would have seen different group sizes if they fired another 10-shot group with the same ammo. Check out any accuracy test in published articles where they fired more than one group with the same ammo. The groups are not the same size, and can vary 2-, 3-, 4-fold or more. That’s just reality. And that’s why i posted the link to the american handgunner article. It shows the variation in group size and velocity SD & ES. But any other published article would do the same thing.

The natoreloading site folks are not exactly ammo experts. They say that the Berry’s bullet is the only plated bullet in the test. Wrong. The Speer 124 grain TMJ is a plated bullet, too. Also, the important variable in using cases that are the “same” for accuracy testing, is that they have the same volume. Case volume affects the size of the powder chamber, and differences in powder chamber affect pressure. They measured case weight, not the volume. This is a common mistake, but science 101 says you should measure the thing you’re trying to measure, not something else and ASSUME it’s the same thing. It isn’t. Their cases might have had the same volume. We’ll never know because they didn’t measure it.



The american handgunner link looks at something completely different. As stated before, it tests a specific hypothesis; is group size correlated with velocity standard deviation or extreme spread?

The variation in group size and SD and ES is a good thing for that test. Please stop whining about it. It’s necessary for the numbers to have some variation in order to be statistically distinguishable. The author explains that in the article. Here is what it says, “How many shots should be in the group? Five? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? I don’t think there is a magic number as long as both the group sizes and velocity spreads have enough variation they don’t look the same and are statistically distinguishable. For example, if all the groups measure the same size, then the variation in velocity can’t distinguish between them.“ He’s measuring two variables required in order to do a, “Pearson correlation coefficient statistical test comparing group size to the standard deviation of the velocity.” He doesn’t care what the velocity spread is. He doesn’t care what the group size is. All he wants are numbers to do the statistical test.

He’s not trying to shoot small groups. Group size does not matter. He’s not trying to shoot groups the same size. He’s not trying to get the velocity SD and ES to be the same for all the groups. I guess you missed that. You say it’s a bad thing but the author says it’s a good thing. All you accomplish by complaining about the american handgunner article is provide proof that you don’t understand the purpose of that article, even though the author explains what the purpose is.

It doesn’t matter if the cases in the american handgunner article have differences in capacity. The important things to measure are the velocity and group size. It doesn’t matter what might account for the differences in velocity. The velocity is a measured variable and it defines the SD and ES, and as noted, variation here is good.

[9MMand223only]

Hi,

Actually, the Speer TMJ is not plated, your thinking of CPRN or something. TMJ is jacketed, just not "full" its jacket ends at base.

So I have to correct you there. nato site is correct.

"TMJ
Unlike conventional FMJ bullets that leave lead exposed at the base, the TMJ® bullet's lead core is encased in a seamless jacket. It’s cleaner, more accurate and more consistent than any FMJ. "

U are also incorrect when you said nato site didn't measure internal case volume. It clearly says they do, perhaps you missed that. Every case was measured by internal volume, you can clearly see this in the data. It even says right on the target, the internal case volume was right near 13.00 grains. If you look at more of their tests, they list internal case volume on many things in their tests. They are measuring it, but it looks like they start out by sorting by weight, which is the obvious step.

Seems like you are incorrect on almost every point your making?

I will drop a quick e-mail to Speer though, let them know stop advertising TMJ as jacketed, and let them know its plated. I am sure they would like to correct this, they don't want to mislead you on purpose.

[74A95]

I stand corrected on the case volume. I didn't see that detail in their pictures. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, the Speer TMJ bullets are plated.

Your description contradicts Speer’s description. You say the TMJ bullets are not full jackets, that its jacket ends at the base. But your quote from Speer says the bullet is encased in a seamless jacket. The base of Speer TMJ bullets is covered with that seamless copper plating.

I have Speer 124 TMJ bullets (catalog # 3993) and others. They’re plated; the plating forms a complete, seamless copper coating all over the bullet, including the base.

FMJ bullets have the traditional 2-part cup and core design with an exposed lead base.

The full quote of what Speer says is at this kink:

https://www.speer-ammo.com/products/...un-bullet/3993

Speer uses their Uni-Cor technology for the TMJ and Gold Dot HP bullets. Both are plated.

How Speer describes it in their Loading Manual #14 page 729:

“Speer’s Uni-Cor bullets incorporate a process that builds a true jacket through the electro-chemical bonding of pure copper to a lead core. This bond makes core-jacket separation virtually impossible.

Each bullet begins as a swaged lead core. The lead alloy is chosen for the specific use of the bullet. Expanding bullets have a soft lead core; a harder core is used for target bullets. After swaging and cleaning, the cores are placed in a computer-controlled electro-chemical plating system to receive the copper jacket literally one molecule at a time. Jacket thickness ranges from 0.007 inches to over 0.030 inches depending on the bullet’s intended use. Because of the slow and carefully controlled copper deposition, jackets are tougher and more concentric giving bullet integrity not possible with conventional jacketed bullets. …

Uni-Cor technology is literally at the core of every Speer Gold Dot, TMJ, and Uni-Cor expanding bullet. …. “

Hope that clears it up.

[Unclenick]

I think you guys are mixing apples and oranges. The new Federal primer (subject of this thread) is not a DDNT primer like the other commercial non-toxic primers all are (AFAIK). That's critical. The problem that introduces inaccuracy with DDNT primers has nothing to do with SD. It has to do with ignition delay. See figure 4 of this study. Ignition delays far in excess of gun lock time can be observed in DDNT primers, giving plenty of time for the shooter's muscle contractions to move the muzzle enough to widen groups. It takes perfect trigger control and follow-through to shoot well with them. Most people are not that good and most will be prone to getting wider groups from them.

As to Federal's claim for shelf life, it may be possible for it to be equal for marketing purposes, but lead styphnate does not undergo spontaneous break-down at the same rate nitrocellulose does. In useful forms, it can survive unchanged at 200°C and be stored under water for 12 months without showing evidence of deterioration or picking up a significant amount of water. So it can theoretically last centuries in cool and dry environments. Nitrocellulose does not stand up to such high temperatures and absorbs water when submerged. So I'm not sure what Federal is basing the equivalent life claim on. I'll have to ask them, but lead styphnate is intrinsically more rugged and stable than nitrocellulose. Being developed for the military, the new primer will presumably have to survive at least 45 years in stockpiles.