hard LP primers

[Lloyd Smale]

the reason myself and many other shooters dont like rem primers is years ago there quality control was the pits! Just about every batch of them were differnt sized. Some would about fall out of a primer pocket and some could barely be seated. Ive used some lately and they seemed to have gotten better but i still have that stuck in my craw. Kind of like once you have a problem with a gun or scope or anything else you kind of loose confidence in it and even after its fixed it is hard to like it again.

John Boy...Very good information as "brisance" is where it is at for us smokeless powder cast bullet rifle shooters. As you know "brisance" is the speed at which it released 100% of it's energy. The quicker the more "shattering effect" is has on what it hits.

In rifles, with small powder charges, this brisance also helps to light off the charge PDQ. In days gone by the Remington 9.5 was "the primers of choice" for this use, as it had the highest brisance. I don't know if this is still true, but I used them exclusively for my rifle loads. It just may be my imagination, but it seems that they enable me to find good loads faster.

For some reason, which I don't understand folks tend to buy other brands of primers over the Remington. A few years ago, I was in a gun store in Corpus Christi, Texas and they had a sale on their old stock Remington Primers. They wanted to get rid of them as people wanted CCI or Winchester. The price was 50% of the old price on them. I made them an offer for every Remington primer they had on their shelf. They took the offer, and I bought a butt load of Remington primers. I was and am very happy with that deal.

I noted the cups are softer on the Remington Primers, I wonder if this has anything to do with their high brisance. I found the pic of the Wolf LP and Remington 9.5 to be very imformative. Thanks for taking the time to post this information.

[Char-Gar]

All I can say, is that I have never had any problems with the fit or performance of Remington primers. I have used many thousands over the past 20 years. Before that I was a CCI man. I don't question that Remington or any other maker can have a bad run, but they never fell into my hands.

[John Boy]

This link is based on an article by John Barsness - GUNS magazine pg 26 May 2009
http://www.sksboards.com/smf/index.php?topic=56422.0 Interesting read.

I thought that Precision Shooter had an article about ten years ago that did drop test on the force required to detonate primers to determine sensitivity. Does anyone remember this and what issue it was?

M-Tecs, thanks for the link. I found it to be an interesting and informative read including that H-110 needs a magnum primer. I've been successively developing a load for the 32-40 using Alliants 300-MP which Alliant has no data only to say it's RQ is close to H-110. Only after reading up about H-110 in Propellent Profiles , is where I determined this powder needs a magnum primer and so does the 300-MP, a pistol powder. I've got the 100 & 200yd groups very accurate but have failed with the right powder charge to get accurate 300yd groups

Respective to brisance in the article, it was a good overview read for smokeless powders but the shooting sports have few dedicated BPCR shooters. So, we are like the 3rd wheel on a bicycle in this aspect of primers - having to experiment with primer types and powder column compression to find the accurate reloads by ourselves. Especially those of us that shoot long distance targets, 700 to 1000yds. The concept of keeping the bullet in the sonic velocity @ 1000ys is the same as smokeless shooters - but the initial brisance ignition details for us BP shooters has never really been studied by the primer industry

re: Sure would like to read and save what the force is needed by primer type to ignite each. There are many shooters that hour glass or put after market springs in their firearms and then moan and groan they have failures to ignite or multiple miss fires. Here is a read in the Rifleman's Journal how the needed force is determined but does not detail what those forces are for different vendor's primers ...
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com...t-go-bang.html

[9.3X62AL]

TONS OF GREAT INFO IN THIS THREAD--thank you all very much!

My principal "problem" with Remington primers has been finding the darn things locally. Most of the shops stock CCI and W-W in depth, but the Rems are all but absent.

[mdi]

John Boy, thanks for the info. I wasn't being critical of your initial post, just had some questions raised from your good report on primer cup hardness. Personally, with my so-so shooting ability I could prolly use match heads for priming and notice no difference in accuracy/preformance I just like to know. Even though I've been reloading since '69, off and on, I don't consider myself an expert by any means, but I do have common sense, and think before I act...

[mdi]

John Boy, thanks for the info. I wasn't being critical of your initial post, just had some questions raised from your good report on primer cup hardness. Personally, with my so-so shooting ability I could prolly use match heads for priming and notice no difference in accuracy/preformance I just like to know. Even though I've been reloading since '69, off and on, I don't consider myself an expert by any means, but I do have common sense, am curious, and think before I act...

[John Boy]

Personally, with my so-so shooting ability I could prolly use match heads for priming and notice no difference in accuracy/performance

mdi, had a good chuckle but match heads have been tried to reduce BPCR brisance. Only a couple of experimenters though and they found they were loosing sleep scraping - cutting - packing - putting the anvils back in!

There has been an ongoing conversation among the BPCR community to use pistol primers (I use them) and then put a wad of 0.10" construction paper either in the primer pocket or under the flash hole. One shooter even used aluminum foil. I didn't gain any velocity using the wads so stopped.

Our ultimate objective in addition to good average velocities and SD's is to keep a 500+ gr bullet as close to sonic at 1000 yds. BP being a weak powder using FFFg powder can achieve a muzzle velocity in the low 1200 fps but with a 35 foot trajectory when it reaches the 1000yd target the fps is in the high 600 fps. I have a couple of reloads that calculate to 680 fps @ 1000 ... showing that close to 500+ fps drops off from the muzzle. So reading the wind and mirage with the bullet doing 600 fps - one has to be on top of their game to hit the 44" target black or the 10" bullseye

But I love the challange and am thrilled with a hole in the bullseye @ 1000

[DWM]

Great info on primers , I have a bit of european info , we have a new primer a extra large primer 6,53 mm Ginex and Murom are now producing then and new .338 Lapua mag cases come with this primer size ideal for big bore cartidges with 120 to 200 grains of slow burning powder

http://www.mpzflame.ru/english/primers.php

look for Large Rifle KVB-6,53/0,70N KVB-6,53/0,70E 6,53 mm

Physical Dimensions are small enough as such that it still can be integrated into a standard cartridge web.All it takes is the enlarged primer pocket –In reality it can be used in cold weather-configurations ( arctic – warfare ) on cases as small as 7.62 NATO-. 308; as the russian MUROM Berdan-Primer does in their cold-weather .308 sporting cartridge.

DWM

[bslim]

For years I've had to use Federal primers in my 45 Colt for Cowboy Action. Over the past couple of years I've now been able to use the new CCI primers without having to change my main spring tension. I was under the understanding that Federal had purchased CCI and now both primers were of the same sensitivity?