Primers!?

[gerryb158]

Well, ebg3 says he has loaded and shot 100,000 rounds of .40 S&W with Small Rifle primers. Thereby breaking every rule in the books and he is still alive and kicking. Now, in all that loading, I have to wonder if he ever had an "upside down" primer? Of course, if he had, he would have taken that cartridge case out behind the barn, doused it with oil or WD-40, and buried it as deep as possible. Of course it's a good idea to follow the data provided in reloading manuals as to which primer belongs with which powder. But, after years of reloading, something must be learned. Many manuals do not even list a preferred primer. What to do? And, as we all know, minimum and maximum charges vary considerably from one manual to another or to the publication date of the manual. So what does that mean? A Speer manual published in 1992 (that worked fine back then) is no longer valid? Oh, I see, the powder has changed over the years? Well, I have some cans of Unique that are maybe 30 years old and, funny thing, it shoots the same as the "new" stuff. My point is that reloading rifle and pistol cartridges can be done safely with common sense and care in the choice of components and particularly the amount of powder and type of powder used. If there is a "danger" in this hobby it is not primers. It is carelessness in dropping a powder charge. By all means, follow what is published in the books but pay attention to what you are doing. Gerry

 

[ebg3]

Well said Gerry. And I'll add, if all possible combinations were listed for a specific cartridge, each would fill an entire reloading manual. The only problem I've seen using rifle primers in place of small pistol primers is if your gun has a lightened mainspring, you may encounter a light strike. In the 2011/1911 platform, I use extended firing pins and never have this problem. I have had light strikes with Glocks and M&Ps using rifle primers so, I don't use them anymore! Problem solved. I have not yet encountered a light strike with my .357 BH/rifle primers and because I have several sleeves on the shelf I think I'll keep using them. Work your loads up slowly and be safe.
EG

 

[WESHOOT2]

One small point: Winchester Small Pistol Magnum primers can add up to 5,000 PSI to a load.

 

[bearing01]

Cabela's has small and large pistol primers in stock today. They were out yesterday. So you may have a couple days before these are gone. Act fast.


http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templ ... ISO-8859-1

 

[Rick Courtright]

Can you detail the Lee 2nd edition.....I have the same manual and see where it shows 18.5c which indicates a compressed charge. Explain to me what a compressed charge is as compared to start grains???? Reason I ask.......listed for Win296 it has N/A across the board for grains and in the second column it has never exceed of 18.5c

Hi,

If you research the recipes reported in Lee's books, you'll find they're NOT Lee's own, but a compilation of recipes furnished by the powder mfrs in their little booklets, modified by not specifying brands of brass, primer and bullet as generally reported by the powder mfrs themselves.

The reason for the N/A in the "start" column w/ 296 is that for all the years Winchester 296 was sold by the Winchester marketing arm of Olin, it was advised NOT to reduce the charges when using 296.

Unlike the reports of pressure spikes w/ reduced charges of 296 (you'll read stories of "detonation" but to my knowledge, ALL attempts at reproducing the phenomenon in the labs have failed), Winchester's warning involved the possibility of squib loads, w/ a bullet sticking in the barrel. Firing a "good" round behind a stuck bullet is almost always a recipe for trouble at the least, destruction at the worst.

Since Hodgdon's has taken over marketing of Winchester (and IMR) brands, there have been a lot of "new" recommendations which should be viewed w/ the same "professional skepticism" that any others should be....

As for Speer's books, I've noticed that while some remain pretty consistent in their recipes over the years, Speer tends to change a LOT. Read into that whatever suggestion for being cautious you wish.

And, when in doubt about ANYBODY'S recipe advice, go write "In MY gun" on the board 100 times...

Rick C

 

[Sonnytoo]

Those who always use magnum primers with magnum cartridges should look to their powder for the answer. You are right; generally use magnum primers only with slower burning powders like H110, Lil' Gun, HS-7(in big-bore revolver cases) and Win 296. For H110 powder only, in all temperatures, use Magnum primers.
Generally, use standard primers with everything else. Accurate Arms and Alliant (Hercules) recommend a standard primer ONLY with all of their powders intended for handguns. So, only use standard primers with your 2400 loads.
One lab reported a 10,000 psi increase in .44 Mag loads, with 2400 powder, when a switch was made from standard to magnum primers.
Speer Manual #13 also says, in the .357 and .44 magnum chapters, that performance was significantly improved when they changed from Magnum to standard primers.
This info comes from Brian Pearce, via HANDLOADER 236, August 2005.

 

[gerryb158]

Sorry, but I find it impossible to accept that a 10,000psi pressure increase can occur with simply the change from a "standard" to a "magnum" primer, or even 5,000psi for that matter. The primer, by itself, could probably generate (maybe) a couple hundred psi. (Try getting a bullet out of the barrel with only a primer.) Of course combustion of the powder is another story. If Speer found "performance was significantly improved when they changed from magnum to standad primers" exactly what do they mean? I suspect they are referring primarily to accuracy. Combustion of a known, fixed, acceptable powder charge fired by a "standard" primer will not destroy the gun if fired with a "magnum" or even a "rifle" primer. After all, Winchester makes primers that are suitable for standard as well as magnum pistol loads. How do they do that? Again, I am not advising anyone to violate published data. It is probably a good idea to use a "magnum" primer with H110/W296. I just don't think primers need to be treated as if they were hand grenades! Gerry

 

[ebg3]

I'll keep everyone posted if I have any problems because I am going to continue using small rifle primers in my .40 S&W and my .357 mag.. I've been doing it for years and see no reason to stop. Hope I don't blow something up!:wink:

 

[WESHOOT2]

Sorry, but I find it impossible to accept that a 10,000psi pressure increase can occur with simply the change from a "standard" to a "magnum" primer, or even 5,000psi for that matter. The primer, by itself, could probably generate (maybe) a couple hundred psi. (Try getting a bullet out of the barrel with only a primer.) Of course combustion of the powder is another story. If Speer found "performance was significantly improved when they changed from magnum to standad primers" exactly what do they mean? I suspect they are referring primarily to accuracy. Combustion of a known, fixed, acceptable powder charge fired by a "standard" primer will not destroy the gun if fired with a "magnum" or even a "rifle" primer. After all, Winchester makes primers that are suitable for standard as well as magnum pistol loads. How do they do that? Again, I am not advising anyone to violate published data. It is probably a good idea to use a "magnum" primer with H110/W296. I just don't think primers need to be treated as if they were hand grenades! Gerry

The 5K increase is published in certain manuals; tested.
Not a "belief" issue.

 

[Bucks Owin]

Simply put, the bullet compresses the powder in the shell. It is much more common in rifle cartridges than pistol. Winchester 296 has a narrow operating range in pistol use anyway.

Better read John Linebaugh's thoughts on W296/H110. Two of the most stable powders available for handgun use, especially under compression, all the way to 60K:.......For years Hercules 2400 was considered to be the finest magnum handgun powder available. Pressure data has shown that this is not true and the finest sixgun powders available today for heavy handloads are Hodgdons H-110 and Winchesters WW-296. These powders are basically the same and can be fully interchanged as to charge weights. I've probably shot over 50 lbs of WW-296 in all my testing and twice that much H-110. I feel H-110 is kinder to lead bullets than W296 but H-110 does vary from lot to lot more than W296. I have never seen a "hot" or fast can of H-110 but have used some that was a grain or 2 slower than normal. The only way you can tell this is with Pressure equipment or a chronograph. With these powders VELOCITY MEANS PRESSURE. If you're not getting normal velocities, your powder is slow and not generating normal pressure.................................................................................I've used the following slugs because they handle 98% of my shooting requirements. Heavier slugs can be used but are not needed and will make the powders listed with burning rates faster than H-110 and WW 296 act even more radically. Too heavy a slug, seated too deeply in the case can cause #2400 to act like Unique and Unique to act like Bullseye. Small increases in powder charges can result in dramatic pressure jumps. For any serious heavy handloads I use only H-110 and WW 296 powders. These are the 2 most stable powders we have for this reloading application. Our pressure testing has proven both powders to be absolutely stable up to 60,000 CUP. Steady, smooth and no pressure spikes. Other powders can be used but great caution is advised....FWIW, Dennis :wink:

 

[gerryb158]

I guess I should have said "I don't accept (believe) the 10,000psi or 5000psi pressure increase" in my gun. Tested. Gerry

 

[gmaske]

Simply put, the bullet compresses the powder in the shell. It is much more common in rifle cartridges than pistol. Winchester 296 has a narrow operating range in pistol use anyway.

Better read John Linebaugh's thoughts on W296/H110. Two of the most stable powders available for handgun use, especially under compression, all the way to 60K:.......For years Hercules 2400 was considered to be the finest magnum handgun powder available. Pressure data has shown that this is not true and the finest sixgun powders available today for heavy handloads are Hodgdons H-110 and Winchesters WW-296. These powders are basically the same and can be fully interchanged as to charge weights. I've probably shot over 50 lbs of WW-296 in all my testing and twice that much H-110. I feel H-110 is kinder to lead bullets than W296 but H-110 does vary from lot to lot more than W296. I have never seen a "hot" or fast can of H-110 but have used some that was a grain or 2 slower than normal. The only way you can tell this is with Pressure equipment or a chronograph. With these powders VELOCITY MEANS PRESSURE. If you're not getting normal velocities, your powder is slow and not generating normal pressure.................................................................................I've used the following slugs because they handle 98% of my shooting requirements. Heavier slugs can be used but are not needed and will make the powders listed with burning rates faster than H-110 and WW 296 act even more radically. Too heavy a slug, seated too deeply in the case can cause #2400 to act like Unique and Unique to act like Bullseye. Small increases in powder charges can result in dramatic pressure jumps. For any serious heavy handloads I use only H-110 and WW 296 powders. These are the 2 most stable powders we have for this reloading application. Our pressure testing has proven both powders to be absolutely stable up to 60,000 CUP. Steady, smooth and no pressure spikes. Other powders can be used but great caution is advised....FWIW, Dennis :wink:

I am only requoting what I have read about 296 as far as under charging is concerned. I've used it quite a bit and don't have a problem with it. If you stay within the margins of the data it is a great powder. Actually I was really only answering the man's question about compressed powder charges. I'm not sure what your point is here?

 

[ebg3]

Made it to the gun show yesterday and bought 8# of 2400. I plan on loading some comparison loads with rifle and pistol primers. I will use CCI small rifle and Win. regular small pistol primers in my tests. I don't have pressure testing equipment but I will compare accuracy and velocity with the different primers. All loads will be with my cast 173gr Keith bullet and shot out of my new 4 5/8" flat top .357. Results soon to follow.
EG

 

[WESHOOT2]

Here's the oddest behavior I've noted when working with 'standard' magnum primers vs the WSPM: that potential 5K PSI increase very often does not create a concomitant increase in velocity.
Sometimes there is no measurable increase in velocity.

 

[ebg3]

I would expect to reach a velocity limit with 2400 and the 4 5/8" barrel regardless of what primer is used. From what I've read about the 173gr Keith bullet and my barrel length, 1350fps is about the max on velocity. I'm going to target 1325 fps and not try to push it any faster. I think I'll be safe and at the higher end of the acceptable pressure range. I predict 1325fps will be reached safely with the pistol and rifle primers; I'm curious to see accuracy and visual pressure differences, if any. Results soon...

 

[gerryb158]

ebg3, I looked through some of my "older" manuals and they do confirm what you're looking for is certainly do-able. I don't recall using anything heavier than 158 gr. in my .357 loads but the heavier bullets would be interesting. Anyway, here are some "MAX" loads of 2400 I found that might interest you, not that I "recommend" any of them. All use the CCI550 (small pistol magnum) primer in these books. I didn't find anything for lead bullets but I think you would be using gas checks for this velocity so these should be fairly close to what you will need.
Speer. 15.7 gr. = 1341 fps 160 gr. jsp
13.8 gr. = 1469 fps 180 gr. jsp
Hodgdon 13.0 gr. = 1344 fps 170 gr. fmj 39,800 cup
Sierra 13.9 gr. = 1100 fps 170 gr. jsp
As usual it's interesting to see the variables from the different sources. Only Hodgdon gave the pressure listing and I don't know what barrel these tests were fired in. Good luck. Be careful. Let us know how you make out. Gerry

 

[ebg3]

Thanks for the info.
EG

 

[c.r.]

I didn't find anything for lead bullets but I think you would be using gas checks for this velocity so these should be fairly close to what you will need.

Is this correct? I have only been at this for around a year, but my understanding is that when reloading gas checked bullets, we use lead bullet data to reload the GC bullets.

Thank you,
C.R.

 

[gerryb158]

Gas checked bullets certainly use "lead bullet" data. I didn't find any lead data for 170 gr. bullets in the few books I looked at but I'm sure this information is available with a little research. I did say the loads I listed should be "fairly close" as gas checked bullets can be pushed quite a bit harder than plain base bullets. "Normally" jacketed bullets are loaded to much higher pressures - and velocity - than lead. In any case it's always a good idea to start below maximum and "work up" to the velocity you want, watching for pressure signs on the way. Gerry

 

[Rick Courtright]

From what I've read about the 173gr Keith bullet and my barrel length, 1350fps is about the max on velocity. I'm going to target 1325 fps and not try to push it any faster.

Hi,

Until I see further info to the contrary, I think you're pushing it, perhaps quite a bit?

I have an old RCBS Cast Bullet book sitting here that gives data for both a 175 gr and a 180 gr gas checked bullet. (Note that as far as I know, the Keith design is NOT gas checked.) Max velocity between the two, using 2400, is right at 1200 fps. RCBS does not give pressures, so I don't know if there's much, any or NO leeway w/ their max loads.

My chronograph says achieving major velocity gains (using just 150-158 gr bullets) after about 1250 fps in the .357 Mag isn't quite as easy as the books make it seem. But that's in MY gun...

These guys have more info than any of us on this kind of stuff: http://www.hpwhite.com/ Prepare to spend money if you want 'em to share some of it...

Rick C