Would you consider these primers flattened?

[Nick_C_S]

I just want some opinions.

Yes, I know reading primers for pressure signs is nearly on a par with crystal ball and palm readings. Let's put that aside for now please.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...320&fit=bounds

I'll explain later, but obviously it's about whether or not this loading should concern me from an overpressure standpoint. I will tell you that it's a 38 Special "+P" loading. I'll will give the full story with full details later.

Thanks in advance.

[Unclenick]

It would be helpful to have an image of the primers in question. I see you posted five minutes ago, so maybe you are working on it.

[Nick_C_S]

Yeah, I'm working on it. I've used Photobucket years ago. But it would seem that I don't remember how to do it. Shouldn't be this hard.

[Unclenick]

Just click on "Go Advanced" and use the "Manage Attachments" button to upload it to the forum to host. That's good insurance against something happening at Photobucket, as it did in the past. Once you have uploaded it in that way, you can right-click on it and copy the link to paste between the IMG tags, same as if it were hosted elsewhere.

[Nick_C_S]

Not seeing the "Go Advanced" anywhere. Is that in TFL, or Photobucket?

Oh, I see it now. But still couldn't get it to work. In Photobucket, I doesn't give me a "copy URL" option. I remember this being much easier .

At any rate, I got the link to show up (already forget how I did that - I have short-term memory issues). But I wanted the pic to show up in the post - not a link to click on. I guess I'll just count my blessings at this point.

[Unclenick]

[scatterbrain]

They fulfill my definition of too much. The corners are sharp and there is marking on the face of the primer, the dimple still appears to be round and not backing out, that's next to occur.

[Unclenick]

The corners are sharp and they are pretty flat, but I don't see any flow out into the chamfer of the primer pocket perimeter; in other words, no mushrooming. Of course, if you don't have much head clearance, you might not see much mushrooming before primers started to pierce.

[ligonierbill]

Direct answer: No. Sensible answer: Primers probably won't be useful in assessing 38 Special. Do the cases drop out easily? Is the velocity near your expectation?

[Shadow9mm]

To me they look good, lightly flattened, but not excessively. To me this would be a good indication of a full power load with good combustion but not excessive. but that is my gun and my primers. did they all eject cleanly, no sticking?

[44 AMP]

I don't find the appearance of those primers any cause for concern.

[NH15-45]

Primers look fine to me

[Nick_C_S]

Do the cases drop out easily?

Yes. When tilted down, usually, four would drop out via gravity. The other two would follow with a slight touch of the extractor rod.

Is the velocity near your expectation?

Velocities exceeded my expectation. Hence, the post.

The load was a 125gn JHP; using 5.6gn of HP-38. Through my Model 67 4" bbl, I was expecting a little over 900 f/s - maybe 925. A 20 round sample yielded 978 f/s. Three shots exceeded 1000 f/s. I think of HP-38 to be a pretty fast burner, but these exceeded my AA#5 or BE-86 ammo with the same bullet.

It was a great shooting round and would like to keep it (or maybe down to 5.4gn). But I just wanted some other's opinion of the primers; thinking maybe I'm not seeing something.

Addition: I took a 16 month hiatus from loading/shooting due to my move from Ca to Id. It's affected my confidence a little. End addition

QuickLoad has it at 16.6 Kpsi; so maybe I shouldn't be too worried.

Is HP-38 actually a slower propellant than I believe? That would be the simplest explanation.

[Paul B.]

"Is HP-38 actually a slower propellant than I believe?"

Guess I would have to ask, "Slower than what?" It's slower that Bullseye. HP-38 and W231 are the same powder, just different lots of the same powder. By the same token it's faster than Unique and is my favorite powder for use in the .38 Spl. I mainly use it with a 148 gr. wadcutter for targets. In comparison to Bullseye, 2.7 gr. of Bullseye, a long favored load for target shoots has fallen in favor to 3.1 gr. W231, at least in my personal handguns chambered to the .38 Spl. I really haven't given W231/HP38 much thought for use in more potent loads but I think it might work OK. My more serious in power loads for the .38 have been with Unique, usually with a 156 gr. Semi-wadcutter for the .38 Spl. I don't shoot jacketed bullets in my handguns; just my home cast bullets that I make myself.
Paul B.

[TX Nimrod]

Actually, the OP’s load velocity looks fine when compared to Hodgdon data, I wonder why he’s concerned - although it is always best to err on the side of caution. Primers are often a very poor indication of excess pressure, but those in the photo look fine to me.

{Image deleted. Please read the board policy on posting copyrighted materials!}

[9MMand223only]

This is measurable. Just pop the used primers out, and measure how far the face has flattened past the original rim. Like this


This is not flattened.

Both are fired primers.

[zeke]

imo, those primers mean absolutely nothing. What may mean something is you're using .3 gns above the plus p load listed by the manufacturer of the powder, and in a 4 in barrel getting very close to the manufacturers plus p velocity from a 7.7 in. (Hodgen AnnuaL Manual 2019, possibly outdated) It would seem to indicate being slightly above max pressure.

There are likely slightly slower powders to get the same velocity at less pressure. One being unique.

Different primers flatten differently, and you did not indicate which primer you're using.

[9MMand223only]

Those are the same primer, and this 100%, absolutely is proven method, without question on this planet. You do this across 20 shots, etc. same primer brand, same everything, just different powder load.

This is super easy. You start lower pressure, where for example QL says is 30k psi, then you go up, you will notice you get to X PSI it will go beyond edge (Primer).

100% works. 100%

[Metal god]

They look good to me , if anything Id say that hammer is crushing the primers haha . I’d think you could lighten that trigger pull up quite a bit and still be GTG .

On a side note and I could be wrong but I didn’t think you could get enough pressure in a 38 to flatten the primer enough to be concerned. I mean you don’t need mag primers in 357 when using 2400 at max charges so how could even a hot 38 load be of concern. Unless this is about an old 38 firearm that you need to be Cautious of the pressures .

On a side side note , I’m worried my pistol god is asking questions I think I know the answers to lol

[44 AMP]

On a side note and I could be wrong but I didn’t think you could get enough pressure in a 38 to flatten the primer enough to be concerned.

Oh, you absolutely can. No question.

OF course, DOING that is going beyond all published and recommended data, but you CAN physically do it.

After all, the .357 Magnum was developed using the .38 Special case then the longer magnum case was made for production.

[Metal god]

Yep I should have pointed that out . Of course I meant with in published 38spl data

[Nick_C_S]

you did not indicate which primer you're using.

Winchester (WSP).

HP-38 and W231 are the same powder, just different lots of the same powder.

Several years ago, I was at my LGS, and they had both HP-38 and W231. Interestingly enough, they had the exact same lot numbers.

What may mean something is you're using .3 gns above the plus p load listed by the manufacturer of the powder,

I didn't look at Hodgdon's data. I looked at Hornady and Sierra. Hornady maxes at 5.7 grains (I'm at 5.6), and shows a velocity of 950 (I'm at 978) through a Model 15, 4" bbl. Sierra shows 5.8 grains at 1000 f/s, 6" bbl.

. . . it would seem to indicate being slightly above max pressure.

I think so too.

There are likely slightly slower powders to get the same velocity at less pressure. One being unique.

Yes, I know. I appreciate the suggestion. But I wasn't chasing a velocity. I was doing a quickie work up using HP-38. I primarily wanted to get max performance from this propellant, and the resulting velocity was secondary. My go-to for max velocity is Power Pistol . I've retired Unique.

On a side side note , I’m worried my pistol god is asking questions I think I know the answers to lol

Heh, thanks Metal god . I know, this seems to be a rather novice post for one who has been loading for 38 years (okay, two weeks short of 38 years). But I am rusty. I took a 16-month hiatus from shooting/loading to get moved to Idaho. I've gotten humble in my old age (or at least less arrogant ). Something just didn't feel right and so I thought it would be prudent to just get some others to take a look and give their opinions.

And I do appreciate the responses. Thank you everybody.

Something else to add here (and something I didn't think of until after my original post): This 1# cannister of HP-38 I'm using has a lot number that suggests a manufacture date of 12/12/14. I purchased it on 1/13/15. I first opened it on 8/17/18. It's about half full. I suspect that it as lost some moisture; and hence, some density. I'm setting the charge by weight. Perhaps I'm actually throwing more powder than if it was new? The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

[Savvy_Jack]

They don't look too bad but they are certainly talking.

[zeke]

Nick C S -Sierra's new edition IV has a section specifically for plus p 38 special using wsp primers, starline cases and 5.63 in universal barrel (receiver?). Apparently, they updated a bunch of their loadings, now using pressure testing equipment. This is the latest pressure tested data am aware of.

Even their regular max 38 special loads for their 125 gn jsp and jhp, use 6.2 grains Win 231 for 1100 fps (like other manuals likely rounded off)

Like you stated, it is really good to use multiple manuals, but some data in the newer manuals may be a lot older than the manual date.

[Pathfinder45]

If the gun is a 38 Special, I would reduce the powder charge a little. But if it's a 357 magnum, maybe not.