CCI small rifle primers

[foxmeadow]

I have heard that CCI SRP's are pretty much the same as their SPP. I've occasionally used them as such and had no problems. The rumor I've heard is that CCI sort of admitted to that fact.

Anyone know more than that rumor?

[Shadow9mm]

I know the SRP have a thicker cup to withstand the higher pressures of rifle cartridges. As far as the compound and amount I do now know. I have used several brands of SRP in 9mm, 38spl, 357mag, and 45auto (i sent small pistol primer pockets to keep my primers the same) I have had no issues, but I work my loads up from the start to be safe. I have heard reports of some guns having problems having enough firing pin power to setting off the SRP. my G19, G30, Ruger LC9s, and GP100 have had not problems. Have a friend who tried them in his 92F, P365, and a P320 without issue.

Heres a cool video from an ammo remanufacturing company. they tested small pistol, small pistol magnum, and small rifle, CCI, in 9mm for pressure differences and found it to be negligible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGVRGsoOr6k

[74A95]

Originally Posted by foxmeadow

I have heard that CCI SRP's are pretty much the same as their SPP. I've occasionally used them as such and had no problems. The rumor I've heard is that CCI sort of admitted to that fact.

Anyone know more than that rumor?

They are not the same. This has been discussed here many times before. You can search this website for past discussions with direct quotes from CCI, including direct communication with me when I asked them.

CCI has stated very clearly they are not the same and any rumors to the contrary are false. The compound mixtures are different. End of discussion.

[Nick_C_S]

I've heard that their small rifle primers (CCI 400) are the same as their small pistol magnum primers (CCI 550). But I have never heard anything of the sort regarding 400's vs. 500's.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Nick_C_S

I've heard that their small rifle primers (CCI 400) are the same as their small pistol magnum primers (CCI 550). But I have never heard anything of the sort regarding 400's vs. 500's.

The 400 and 550 are not the same. That was the specific question asked CCI.

[higgite]

Originally Posted by foxmeadow

Anyone know more than that rumor?

CCI probably does. Why not give'em a call?

[74A95]

Originally Posted by higgite

CCI probably does. Why not give'em a call?

We've done this half a dozen times on this website. They are not the same. I have been in direct contact with CCI with this exact question.

But you bring up a good point: whenever you have a question about a product, contact the manufacturer. Gun forum are the last place you're going to get the facts.

[reynolds357]

CCI actually said you can use small rifle in small pistol.

[RKG]

There is an extensive article on this very point by Brian Pearce in the current issue of "Rifle" magazine.

[higgite]

Originally Posted by RKG

There is an extensive article on this very point by Brian Pearce in the current issue of "Rifle" magazine.

And his conclusion was...?

[Metal god]

This has come up several times on this forum. I don’t remember which member but they claimed to have spoken with a woman at CCI . When she looked up the specs and compared the #400 and the #550 they had the exact same specs from cup thickness to primer mix .

I’ll add that original thread may have been close to ten years ago and things may have changed since then and 74A95 seems to be saying just that . Maybe he can expand on that . Did they simply say they are not the same or did they actually look up the specs while he was on the phone ?

All that said , I use #400 primers in my 357 loads but can’t bring my self to put #550 in my 223 loads .

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Metal god

This has come up several times on this forum. I don’t remember which member but they claimed to have spoken with a woman at CCI . When she looked up the specs and compared the #400 and the #550 they had the exact same specs from cup thickness to primer mix .

I’ll add that original thread may have been close to ten years ago and things may have changed since then and 74A95 seems to be saying just that . Maybe he can expand on that . Did they simply say they are not the same or did they actually look up the specs while he was on the phone ?

All that said , I use #400 primers in my 357 loads but can’t bring my self to put #550 in my 223 loads .

Per cci 450 or #41 are what you should use in an ar. But i would never use a 550 in a 223.

[Jim Watson]

CCI actually said you can use small rifle in small pistol.

I did it in the previous shortage and they worked fine, no misfires in hammer fired 9mms and no difference in velocity. I will soon be doing it again with SR primers I found in stock at Academy.

There is an extensive article on this very point by Brian Pearce in the current issue of "Rifle" magazine.

I will have to ask the friend who kept up his subscription to let me read that one. Most likely an expert telling me what I already know.

[AlaBusa]

CCI srp and spp magnum are the exact same primer according to CCI.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

[74A95]

Originally Posted by AlaBusa

CCI srp and spp magnum are the exact same primer according to CCI.

Have you not read the previous posts?

[Nick_C_S]

The 400 and 550 are not the same. That was the specific question asked CCI.

I didn't say they were. I said "I've heard."

The point of my original post is that our OP is asking if CCI 400 and 500's are the same. And I was just stating that I've never heard any talk of that. But I've heard lots of talk of CCI 400 and 550's being the same over the years.

[Unclenick]

I'm the one who spoke to the lady at CCI who stated not only that they were the same but that the CCI staff who shot 357 Magnum and the like all bought the 400's because, even with employee discounts, they had a lower price tag just because the packaging didn't have the word "magnum" on it.

However, this was many years ago (probably around the time of the shortage that started in 2009). Allan Jones, who used to develop CCI primers, among other things, points out that primers change more often than folks realize, and it is not normally announced. So I called CCI again to see what they say now. The guy on the phone immediately said, "NO! They are not the same, and anyone interchanging them is playing with Dynamite!"

Hmmm. Unlike the lady I spoke with originally, he did not turn on a computer and look up the cups and anvils and charges used. It was a rote recitation. And "Dynamite?" That's more than a bit over-the-top hyperbole. So, while it is the current official line that they are not the same, I have less faith in the care and feeding that went into the more recent answer than I had in the original. But still, the primers could have changed since then.

So I went online and looked for tests. My preference would have been to do my own, but I did not have current production CCI primers in SRP and SPM, and unless I test current production, what's the point? This came up just before the shortage got into full swing, and I figured to be able to pick some up. So I ordered some 38 cal cast wax bullets for better weight consistency and figured to drill out some 38 Special new brass flash holes to ⅛" for firing them by primer alone to get muzzle energy comparisons. By the time they arrived, though, the primer shortage was well underway, sinking that test.

So, second best, I went looking online. I found the same YouTube video Shadow9mm linked to, which is this one conducted by ammunition manufacturer Super Vel in a pressure test gun, comparing CCI SP, SPM, and SR primers (500, 550, and 400's). They didn't use an adequate sample size to detect a mean difference, so there may be a few fps there, but pressures and velocities all did seem to overlap, excluding an outlier each from pressure and velocity tests, and the one highest pressure reading they got was with a CCI 500 standard small pistol primer, so go figure. In any event, so much for "playing with Dynamite."

This fellow also tries these three primers in 9 mm. He also can't tell any difference by feel or by primer inspection. I just include his video because his attitude makes the most sense. He does say, as his video title does, "don't do this!" To paraphrase him, don't do this even though it makes no difference and doesn't appear to cause any problems. Still, it isn't recommended by the manufacturer, so it's not recommended here. Would I try this in a pinch? Sure. But that's just what I would do, and not a recommendation.

At one point, I found (can't find it now) a comparison done in a carbine that found some kind of difference. Was it a lot of difference, or did the long barrel make a difference? I've forgotten. I just remember the gun didn't blow up.

I will have to take a look at the Rifle article.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Unclenick

So, second best, I went looking online. I found the same YouTube video Shadow9mm linked to, which is this one conducted by ammunition manufacturer Super Vel in a pressure test gun, comparing CCI SP, SPM, and SR primers (500, 550, and 400's). They didn't use an adequate sample size to detect a mean difference, so there may be a few fps there, but pressures and velocities all did seem to overlap, excluding an outlier each from pressure and velocity tests, and the one highest pressure reading they got was with a CCI 500 standard small pistol primer, so go figure.

One 9mm load. How many possible loads are there for 9mm? How many different bullets? How many different powders? How many different charge weights? How many possible loads are there for handguns that use small pistol primers? One load in a 9mm only says what the data was for that one load. You can't generalize from one load.

Originally Posted by Unclenick

This fellow also tries these three primers in 9 mm. He also can't tell any difference by feel or by primer inspection.

That video is a joke. Really. You can't conclude anything other than the gun didn't blow up with that small number of rounds. There was no pressure test. There was no velocity recorded. It's worthless.

It's been said before but apparently it needs to be repeated; These 'tests' only look at the effect of the primer.

You need to make a distinction when you say they are the same.

1) Do they have the same effect? Velocity and the pressure curve are the tools to measure this. But having the same effect does not mean they are the same. It only means they have the same effect (on the load tested).

2) Are they the same primer but just have a different label? This requires a chemistry lab to analyze the compound mixture, which is: what chemicals are in it, and how much of each are in it.

Understand the difference?

[Metal god]

2) Are they the same primer but just have a different label? This requires a chemistry lab to analyze the compound mixture, which is: what chemicals are in it, and how much of each are in it.

No it doesn’t, it take someone from CCI looking up the spec sheets on both or all three and comparing .

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Metal god

No it doesn’t, it take someone from CCI looking up the spec sheets on both or all three and comparing .

That will do. The point is that the minute details of the chemistry are required.

[Jim Watson]

You think they change chemicals for different primers?
I don't.
Lots easier just to swap out strip brass and punches for different applications.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

You think they change chemicals for different primers?
I don't.
Lots easier just to swap out strip brass and punches for different applications.

You're saying that all primers are the same mixture?

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

[Jim Watson]

Federal used to plug their more sensitive basic lead styphnate priming - until they felt they had to get into the lead-free game - which I take to mean they are all the same mix.

[Nick_C_S]

At this point, it's no wonder that our OP hasn't chimed back in.

[foxmeadow]

I apologize for starting this goatrope...