Primers

[JustThisColt45]

As I'm new to big bore and new to reloading, one year each, the 5000 + rounds I've shot have all taught me something....its been very cool! Because I have spent most me time researching and developing loads for the "powder of the hour" I have just had faith that primers worked, had questions but it seemed they could wait. Started with CCI300s per advise of this forum, picked up some Fed155s when I ran into H110. Now recently getting low of priming i went shopping to find only Remington2 1/2, week later only WLP. WLP was one of the a for mentioned mysteries...
last time at the range I heard my third shot eventually hit the trap...then chinggled some, hmm ? bit slow. have not had the happen before using 7.5grs of TB / 230prn ... I removed the cylinder and lit the barrel and looked like sand paper in there! The rest of the box shot very poorly only difference between this load and hundreds performing well prior was the primer. As fate would have it a Chrony was in my stocking! and with primers on my mind! Next are the results of that confluence.

Ruger BH 5.5in .45 acp cylinder
PMC brass
11.5gr RWC
10 shots each

CCI300 Average Velocity 545fps, Extreme Spread 134

Fereral155 Average Velocity 489fps, Extreme Spread 43

WLP Average Velocity 539fps, Extreme Spread 88

Rem 2 1/2 Average Velocity 400, Extreme Spread 439

Yes i double checked it, The first testing I did I started with the Remington and had numbers all over the place and thought the results must be from cylinder variance of some type so I tossed 'em and started the test over using only one cylinder bore, Thoughts?

 

[427mach1]

Your results look suspicious to me, especially the last one with an extreme spread greater than the average velocity. How do the velocities compare to those predicted by your reloading manual? How far was your chronograph from the muzzle? I've seen results like this when the chronograph is too close. The initial shock wave, traveling faster than the bullet, is strong enough to start the timer, then the bullet passes the first screen (which has already been triggered by the gases), then the bullet passes through the second timer, thereby stopping the clock. This results in a much longer "time between the screens" and a much lower, and erroneous, velocity calculation. I would try moving the chronograph further away and repeating.

 

[willk]

Speaking of velocity, those look awful slow. I think for safety's sake, I would try to keep the numbers in the 750 FPS range. There Is Nothing like sticking a bullet in the barrel to ruin a follow-up shot. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe its because I am an IHMSA shooter and not a CAS or action pistol shooter, but speed is your friend.

 

[contender]

I load a lot of 45 ACP myself. I use mine in competition. I use WLP primers a LOT.
The standard 45 ACP load is somewhere around 850 fps to 900fps, give or take a bit for a 230 grn RN. In USPSA competition, we have what is known as a "power factor" to prevent folks from using too slow loads, and or creating dangerous loads.
To make "major" PF for me, in my 45, I need a velocity of 720 FPS MINIMUM. I usually load mine to 750 fps to make sure I don't go below my PF. At 750 fps, it's a creampuff compared to any factory ammo. Velocities below 550 fps make me wonder more than the choice of primers here.
As noted, how far away is your chrono when testing?

 

[427mach1]

And what caliber are you actually shooting? You mention 45 ACP but 7.5 grains of TB (Trail Boss?) is well above max load for that caliber/bullet. Hodgdon shows 4.5 grains max. What powder is is RWC? I don't see ANY powders for the 45 ACP above 8 grains or so.

 

[6gun]

Winchester primers and the rest you show are all excellent primers, I think your spending way to much time worrying about primers and not enough time working up a powder load.

 

[GasGuzzler]

I'm scared. So much of this makes no sense.

 

[Jim Puke]

I'm scared. So much of this makes no sense.

ng

Bingo... :mrgreen:

 

[JustThisColt45]

bummer thought i was clear... at the range all my loads are by the book... less TB but that's an aside


in my basement these are just a 11.2 gr Rubber Wad Cutter and as it stats on the box "Primer propelled only"

I give some of the ES to the nature of the little rubber bullet. That said 3 of the four performed fine. as for the CCI ES take into account that it included the only +600fps shots...had some hot ones

as for the REMs extreme ES, they had a high of 575.2 and a low of 135.7....felt like it and the only very low hitting shots

20" from barrel to first sensor...

 

[427mach1]

Sorry, I don't have any experience shooting rubber bullets or primer-only loads, so... I'm out!

 

[7mmb]

All of your loads are shooting way too slow. Either your loads are way too light or your chrono is bad. As far as the Rem 2 1/2 primers, I have checked them against loads I had worked up with CCI300s in 45 Auto and 45 Colt and my loads were practically identical across my chrono with both primers. My testing was also shot out of a 5.5" Blackhawk Convertible. I'd bet that none of your loads would cycle the slide of an auto pistol reliably. My thoughts would be to stop thinking about the primer and start thinking about the powder. All of your loads are unacceptable.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Hi,

Ok, it's making more sense now! But due to lack of experience w/ any of the "primer only" ammo, I've gotta go sit on the bench next to 427...

Rick C

 

[JustThisColt45]

yes, because of what i would call a miss fire at the range I started wondering of a good way to test primer constancy. The rubber bullets are used for fast draw competition. I thought Chrony these rubber bullets with the primers being the only variable. When I did, the the data shows that with the rem 2 1/2 i should expect a sub 200 fps shot every 1.3 shots some as low a 137. no other brand shot lower than 490fps this seemed significant enough to ask as I do believe the rems caused my misfire

 

[contender]

I would think that using the rubber bullet, no powder loads may not be the best way to check primer constancy.
Here is what I would do.
I would load 10 rounds each with all the different primers. Make everything else the same. SHoot them over the chrony, from 10 ft. away. That will give you a better idea as to the consistency. BUT,,,,, primers can & will have a different burn rate from one manufacturer to another. So you will see some velocity differences.

 

[98Redline]

I think that your quest would be better suited if you were working with something like a bench rest rifle or single shot pistol and not a revolver.

A revolver is not nearly an accurate enough tool to be able to discern the relative differences between specific brands of primer other than ensuring you get proper ignition and have a primer selected suitably for the powder/load combination. It is akin to testing the cornering performance of racing tires with a dump truck. Unless you happen to be shooting IHMSA out to the 100+ yard range, and using a scale and powder trickler on every round, I seriously doubt that you would be able to tell the difference between the same powder load with any of your mentioned primers. As long as there is enough flame to ignite the charge, the differences in your hold and how the gun performs from shot to shot will vary more than the variation in your primer selection. Throw in some temperature change and your powder burn rate variation will be greater than this as well.

Also shooting any primer with no powder is going to leave a really nasty bore behind. While some may be marginally worse than others, try the same experiment with a real powder charge and I think you will find that bore fowling is more of a function of powder than primer.

+1 on what contender said regarding the rubber bullets. They are designed to be practice aids, not to provide bench rest rifle consistency.

Regarding your misfire at the range, I can honestly say that I have never had a misfire based on my primer not igniting properly. I have had light strikes from particular guns but that was a function of the mechanics of the gun, and not the primer. During loading I have had a few primers over the years that did not pass my initial QC (loose/missing anvil, no priming compound, etc...) but those were weeded out prior to loading. If handled correctly and properly loaded, primers are darn close to 100% reliable.

 

[WESHOOT2]

I use Magnum primers in my rubber-bullet ammo; CCI550s (38 Special) and WSPM (357 Magnum) in small-primer ammo, and CCI350 for biggies.
Only.

 

[mr surveyor]

I'm glad the OP cleared up the topic. It seems to me that his method of comparing brand to brand primers is as good as any as it takes out most all of the usual reloading variables .... powder choice and load consistency, bullet weight consistency, crimp consistency, etc. As long as the dummy projectiles are consistent in weight and physical dimensions, it seems to me that most all of the data gleaned from the chrony would point to the performance of the primer alone. I've been toying with the idea of getting into the wax bullet, or similar alternative, for a long time. Almost did before the last major crunch hit and primers were almost as impossible to find as magic dust.

Now that I understand the original post better, I'd be interested to see more of the same data repeated in sets to determine a possible "trend" in the expected performance.

Thanks JustThisColt45 for an interesting topic.


JD

 

[WESHOOT2]

Caution; rubber bullets CAN shoot thru interior doors.