View Full Version : Russian Primer .223 Test
Pappabear and I went out to test the various Russian Primers we use in our 77 SMK Target load. Tula and Wolf are reported to be produced at the same plant. But they all look different... color, etc. We ran some BR-4s as a sort of control group. All of the Russian had nice S.D.s. Each one had a different velocity too. They are without a doubt, NOT all the same primer.
I'll post some velocities later.
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb201/trixiebud/AmmoandReloading/primers_zps6a950a18.jpg
All four of these were shot with 21.8 gr H322. All loaded on a Chargemaster in the same session
Wolf SRM - 2690 FPS S.D. 8
Wolf .223 - 2715 FPS S.D. 13
Tula 223M - 2692 FPS S.D. 10
CCI BR-4 - 2756 FPS S.D. 22
All the Russians had very acceptable S.D.s... and even though the Wolf .223s were 13, they ran hotter and put 4 bullets touching off a folding ass table using a Bipod.
Very interesting. I will definitely be following this and possibly adding to it as I do more load development.
What length barrel are you using? I'm guessing 18"?
What was the range of those groups?
Interesting, thanks for the post. I also did some testing today with a 21.6 & 21.8 H322 load, both using CCI#41. This was out of a 20" BCM SS410.
The 21.6=2671 SD-21
The 21.8 average was actually slower & the SD was considerably higher.
Midway has the Tula's in stock right now so maybe I'll give them a shot. I just hate paying the hazmat fee. Although even with it, it brings it up to about the same price as the others.
Sent via Tapatalk
... a folding ass table...
Hmmm... is that a table that requires folding one's ass to sit at it?
Or a table that's shaped like an ass, and folds?
Or a folding table designed specifically for an ass?
Nevermind, I just want to follow this thread...
Interesting, thanks for the post. I also did some testing today with a 21.6 & 21.8 H322 load, both using CCI#41. This was out of a 20" BCM SS410.
The 21.6=2671 SD-21
The 21.8 average was actually slower & the SD was considerably higher.
Midway has the Tula's in stock right now so maybe I'll give them a shot. I just hate paying the hazmat fee. Although even with it, it brings it up to about the same price as the others.
I have got to think it's that primer. I bet that the heavy bullet combined with H322 doesn't like a hot military primer. Did you collect any S.D. and E.S. numbers?
What was the range of those groups?
100 yards, Rem 700 20" bolt gun. I'd probably have been better off shooting prone on the mat.
I have got to think it's that primer. I bet that the heavy bullet combined with H322 doesn't like a hot military primer. Did you collect any S.D. and E.S. numbers?
I did. I'll email you the print outs if you promise not to make fun of my SD's. :p
Sent via Tapatalk
The whole point of the Russian primers is to reduce SDs. I'd expect massive SD numbers with Mil primers.
Also... Are you adding a light crimp? Although unrelated to your cyclic issue, that cut my group sized in half for my process.
The whole point of the Russian primers is to reduce SDs. I'd expect massive SD numbers with Mil primers.
Also... Are you adding a light crimp? Although unrelated to your cyclic issue, that cut my group sized in half for my process.
I did run a slight crimp on a few batches but I haven't tested those for accuracy yet. Yesterday was a velocity only test. I need warmer weather for the accuracy thing.
Sent via Tapatalk
The one other thing I want to try is a different crimp method. I want to see if adding ANY crimp helps, or if it's specifically the LEE FCD.
They are made at the same factory, but that in no way indicates that they ARE the same.
http://www.mpzflame.ru/production/primers/
Yep. Seems like the WOLF SRMs and the TULA which both have a green priming compound perform almost the same. The Wolf .223 primers have a copper colored compound and definitely yielded a different velocity.
I'd take any of the three.
Couple quick points to add to Marks report. The squares on that Target are one inch squares. Making several of those clearly SUB MOA. And two of those groups if you take out the one "flier" you have sub 1/2 MOA group. The flier might be the load or the nut behind the trigger? That makes that an impressive load.
I took my gas gun with bergara 16 inch barrel and shot almost as good. MOA was the norm but a little more opened up. I shot the groups pretty quickly and a lesser scope, so I'm sure the user error played into it. But I wanted to make sure the loads shot well out of more than one gun. Because the hallmark of this load, is it shoots great in many different guns.
H322 is for 69 and 77 grain loads. Not light bullets. Just a thought in case you want to use H322.
Those Tula passed the test.
Did you measure the velocity out of the 16 inch gas gun? I just scored some h322, and I've had some tula primers laying around for a while. I'm anxious to try the combo out this spring.
Not this time, but have in the past
69g SMK'S 2697 fps
77g SMK'S 2527 fps
Did you measure the velocity out of the 16 inch gas gun? I just scored some h322, and I've had some tula primers laying around for a while. I'm anxious to try the combo out this spring.
Don't take crimp for granted. Everyone's load is unique to their equipment and technique of course.... but crimp made all the difference in the world in my process.
Don't take crimp for granted. Everyone's load is unique to their equipment and technique of course.... but crimp made all the difference in the world in my process.
Will crimping effect pressure? I'm going to work my way up to the 21.8 (it will be in a 5.56 gun, so I'm not overly concerned, but still, I always error on the side of caution when I'm reloading). But once I verify that load is safe in my gun is there any reason to back it down a little as I test the crimp, then work my way back up with the crimp I settle on?
I've not found one single scrap of evidence to suggest that a normal crimp impacts pressure at all to the point of spiking velocity. With a match bullet you're going to want to crimp lightly enought that you don't deform the bullet anyway.
And I've gone a good bit over the max of 21.8 without getting pressure signs. I can't remember the exact load, and would have to work up all over again to develop it. Our hot Mk 262 wannabee load uses XBR. H322 is faster than XBR, so I feel a little better going 5.56 pressure with the slightly slower XBR powder.... but pumping up the H322 a little bit is still a goal.
I've noticed similar results using Wolf SRMs and Tula 223Ms with H322, Varget, and RamShot TAC. They're very consistant and given the price, a great value.
One thing of note, these primers and H335 do not mix. I was getting hangfires with this combo that I would not get with CCI #41 or 400 primers. Needless to say, I pulled all of these loads and didn't mess with it again. No such issues with the above mentioned powders though.
Yeah... I ditched H335 for that reason. The primers are more valuable to me, by far, than H335.
In fact. I don't have any ball powder anymore.
Yeah... I ditched H335 for that reason. The primers are more valuable to me, by far, than H335.
In fact. I don't have any ball powder anymore.
I don't use 335 any longer either.
I found it odd that no such issue existed with the Ramshot TAC as it is also a ball powder. The SRM / 223M with TAC combo works great. I use that load for my cost effective practice ammo without issues.
Likewise, CFE and W748 would work fine with the Russian primers.
A quick update: I was using CCI #41 for the same load in markm's OP & for the life of me, couldn't get them to cycle reliably or lock back. Major short stroking issues. I was using a 20" BCM SS410 with an A5H2. I received some Tula KVB-5.56M primers and loaded some test rounds. Every round cycled properly and the bolt locked back on the last round. I was pretty surprised to see that the primers had that much of an impact on the cycling issues. The #41's apparently didn't play well with H322 for me.
I didn't test with the chrono but I'd suspect the results would've been similar to markm's. I did find that the 21.8 load had a slightly tighter group than the 21.6 loads.
Sent via Tapatalk
That is very interesting. I wonder if the CCIs weren't getting an early spike in pressure. It's like the Russian primers give off a more steady and consistent powder burn.
Yeah, I'm really surprised about it. The loads were identical in every way except for the primer. It was slightly warmer outside while doing my testing but other than that, all conditions were the same. Night and day difference in performance. I can't totally wrap my head around it.
Sent via Tapatalk
IIRC, I read something somewhere that said a colder primer is better for developing an accuracy load. this was not specific to the 223/556 but it is something I have always simply accepted. do you find this to be true?..
I read a comment from German Salazar in reference to .308 Palma where he said the primers were like Little Red Ridinghood.... they can either be too hot, too cold, or just right.
Too cold, and obviously they're not reliably igniting, hang fires, etc. Too hot and you see the bigger pressure swings and corresponding group sizes.
Salazar went on to cite the guys using primers that were too hot in the Palma brass and negating the benefit. So yeah... there's something to that.
I want to try the revolver test where you can just run the primers in some .38 spl brass with no powder or projectile.... then shoot them in a low light environment to see if there's any flash intensity correlations. My guess is that the Wolf/Tula primers would yield a lower flash.
If Wolf "223" primers and SRM primers are "magnum" primers, then shouldn't they be putting out MORE flash than CCI #41s?
If Wolf "223" primers and SRM primers are "magnum" primers, then shouldn't they be putting out MORE flash than CCI #41s?
41's are magnum primers as well. They have some other slight differences from the cci 450. They are designed for firearms with free floating firing pins.
6mmbr has an article that shows the difference in flash of several srp and lrp. Im blanking on there new name, but if you go there and search primers you should be able to find it.
The difference from primer to primer can be quite a lot. IIRC the rem 7.5's look to be hotter than most lrp. If you have time you should check it out. I will try to find it again and post a link.
Here it is
http://www.6mmbr.com/primerpix.html
41's are magnum primers as well. They have some other slight differences from the cci 450. They are designed for firearms with free floating firing pins.
6mmbr has an article that shows the difference in flash of several srp and lrp. Im blanking on there new name, but if you go there and search primers you should be able to find it.
The difference from primer to primer can be quite a lot. IIRC the rem 7.5's look to be hotter than most lrp. If you have time you should check it out. I will try to find it again and post a link.
This what you were thinking of?
http://www.6mmbr.com/primerpix.html
Wow, compared to the fireballs coming from the Remington primers, it's no wonder that the Russian primers result in hangfires with some powders...
So a little off topic but what primers work with H335?
I don't have any yet but I'm looking to load bulk 55 grain for training and classes.
I'm also not stuck on getting H335. I'll get anything that's good and I can find.
This what you were thinking of?
http://www.6mmbr.com/primerpix.html
That is pretty interesting.
I'm still baffled at the amount of impact the primers had on the cycling issues I was experiencing. I'm hoping to learn more about that.
Sent via Tapatalk
This what you were thinking of?
http://www.6mmbr.com/primerpix.html
Thats it. I posted a link before I saw you did. Those rem 7.5s are pretty hot.
Here is more REAL info on primers than most members probably want (dedicated to markm):
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/primers-large-rifle-primer-study.html
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/primers-small-rifle-primer-study.html
So a little off topic but what primers work with H335?
I don't have any yet but I'm looking to load bulk 55 grain for training and classes.
I'm also not stuck on getting H335. I'll get anything that's good and I can find.I've used CCI 41s with no issue. I got the CCIs because of the issues with Tulas and H335 (Tulas were the only small rifle primer I had when I came into some H335 during the powder drought of 2013).
After I finish off the H335 and the CCI 41s I doubt I'll buy either again unless I run into another situation where those are the only things I can find. Take that for what it's worth. The only thing I really like about H335 is that it meters extremely well. Not playing well with the Tula primers though (which are a lot cheaper than the CCI 41s by the way) is a deal breaker for me now that I have other powders to play with.
I've had good accuracy from Benchmark and Tula small rifle primers and 55 grain FMJs. No ignition problems either. Benchmark seems to flow pretty well through my dillon. If you're just loading up blasting ammo in bulk I can see the appeal of H335 metering, but it's not worth it to me to stock another type of primer.
Here is more REAL info on primers than most members probably want (dedicated to markm):
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/primers-large-rifle-primer-study.html
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/primers-small-rifle-primer-study.html
Thanks for posting this. The first article is another bit of info I looked for but I could not find it. I have not had a chance to read the article on the large rifle primers.
So a little off topic but what primers work with H335?
I don't have any yet but I'm looking to load bulk 55 grain for training and classes.
I'm also not stuck on getting H335. I'll get anything that's good and I can find.
Any primer BUT Wolf has worked for me with H335. The thing is, H335 brings nothing exciting to the table accuracy wise. The Russian primers do. So I pick the primers over the ability to use H335.
Here is more REAL info on primers than most members probably want (dedicated to markm):
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/primers-large-rifle-primer-study.html
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/primers-small-rifle-primer-study.html
Cool. I'll check that out. Thanks.
You should read the second link first. It has a wealth of historical data re primer development. I guess I flipped the links when I copied them.
I'll do that. Thanks.
(edit: I had indeed read this before. It has been a while)
I most recently was googlizing .308 Palma to see if we could rob the Russian Primer train twice by using these for our .308s. I'd come across Salazar's comments on the 7-1/2 Rem primers defeating the purpose of the Palma small rifle primer ignition.
For what it's worth....
Although we've fired 10s of thousands of these WOLF primers without a problem (other than H335 loads), I still jump back to a CCI primer for my Defense handloads in that an aggressive primer is an added level of reliability worth giving up Accuracy and small S.D.s for defensive combat purposes. ;)
For what it's worth....
Although we've fired 10s of thousands of these WOLF primers without a problem (other than H335 loads), I still jump back to a CCI primer for my Defense handloads in that an aggressive primer is an added level of reliability worth giving up Accuracy and small S.D.s for defensive combat purposes. ;)
I wouldn't use the #41 if your defensive load utilizes H322. :eek:
Sent via Tapatalk
I wouldn't use the #41 if your defensive load utilizes H322. :eek:
I wouldn't use those #41s for any load. ;)
I wouldn't use those #41s for any load. ;)
Now you tell me. :D
Sent via Tapatalk
I'd sideline those for Blaster ammo with ball powder. Having different components is always a good thing. As much as I like the Russian primers, I still like having some regular primers around too.
I'd sideline those for Blaster ammo with ball powder. Having different components is always a good thing. As much as I like the Russian primers, I still like having some regular primers around too.
Yep, I agree & it's already done. I pulled them out of my main primer can, replaced them with the Russians & they've been mothballed. I have so many other primers that they're a good candidate to purge during the next panic.
Sent via Tapatalk
There's guys that believe that you HAVE to use #41s to safely load for ARs.
What do you guys not like about the #41s? Why should you not use them with H322?
...and one of them in particular, used to frequent here. He'll be the guy I gouge when things get scarce.
Sent via Tapatalk
What do you guys not like about the #41s? Why should you not use them with H322?
I've never tried them as they're usually a premium price. Ryno's load was short stroking with them with the same load he's having good luck with now.
What do you guys not like about the #41s? Why should you not use them with H322?
For me personally, like markm said, I had major issues cycling them with H322. The Tula cured that right up. They're also pricier & I'm not a fan of the harder cup. It's not that they're terrible, I just prefer others over the #41s.
Sent via Tapatalk
thopkins22
03-05-14, 14:13
I'd be interested in how plain old CCI #400's performs with this load. A lot of Wolf primers are inbound, but the CCI's are so widely available and I've never had one not go bang regardless of powder used. My chrono setup is all but unusable for doing real testing...probably needed to invest in a tripod anyway(would be a great excuse to drop coin on a real spotting scope.) H322 has been totally absent in my searching(albeit I only go looking online every month or so as I have pounds and pounds of TAC and Varget to keep me shooting .223 and .308 respectively.)
Thanks bp7178 for the link to the manufacturer, I'd always assumed incorrectly upon hearing Mark and other's excellent results with the Wolf SRM/.223's, that they were not a Russian product at all. Sort of how some(but apparently not all) Wolf .22LR Match is made by SK Jagd und Sportmunitions in Germany...and then you go to Lapua's website which states that they also actually make .22LR under the SK brand. Confusing as hell.
So is it only some ball powders that don't play well with these? TAC? CFE? H335 the only problem child?
I'd be interested in how plain old CCI #400's perform with these loads. A lot of Wolf primers are inbound, but the CCI's are so widely available and I've never had one not go bang regardless of powder used.
On my original primer test, a few years back, I shot some 400s. I didn't do chrono back then, but I do remember the 400 doing OK. The BR-4s shot the worst in this specific load.
I'd scoop up 400s in a minute if I saw some priced decent. I think they had them at Cabelas, but I passed because they were like 39 bucks per thousand. The Damned BR-4s were $69/1k.
Gotcha. I saw that on the first page but it didn't connect for some reason. I remember #41s going for $60-$70 per 1k last year.
For me personally, like markm said, I had major issues cycling them with H322. The Tula cured that right up. They're also pricier & I'm not a fan of the harder cup. It's not that they're terrible, I just prefer others over the #41s.
Sent via Tapatalk
I just had a terrible thought. What if our complete FAILURE of a President pushes Russian Imports bans in light of the Ukraine fiasco?
PANIC!!!
I just had a terrible thought. What if our complete FAILURE of a President pushes Russian Imports bans in light of the Ukraine fiasco?
PANIC!!!
You won't have to wait for that to happen. Once people read this thread they'll start selling out. You'll wish you never started it. ;)
You already got me on the bandwagon.
Sent via Tapatalk
Fortunately we have a quiet little ammo forum here. If it were overrun... I wouldn't be sharing my primer info.....
I'd be telling you all that you need #41s or your gun will kaboom!
NOTICE: The following test loads were shot from a true NATO chamber. I am not recommending them to anyone. Do your own load development for your safety.
Here are some chrono results from tests I did last Fall. Fired indoors. Temp about 50*.
Rifle used was a 16" DD LW barrelled free floated middie.
First two series are identical except for primer. They were fired within 30 minutes of each other.
55g Barnes RRLP 26g TAC REM 7 ½
Series 5 Shots: 10
Min 2917 Max 2948
Avg 2930 S-D 11
ES 31
55g Barnes RRLP 26g TAC CCI 41
Series 4 Shots: 10
Min 2888 Max 2981
Avg 2940 S-D 27
ES 93
64gr BSB Nosler 25gr TAC CCI41
Series 1 Shots: 5
Min 2810 Max 2852
Avg 2831 S-D 16
ES 42
Here is a Wolf Test: (Wolf SR 223)
55g HRN SP 25g H335 Wolf
Series 11 Shots: 10
Min 2823 Max 2852
Avg 2839 S-D 9
ES 29
CONTROL:
69g Federal Gold Medal Match
Series 6 Shots: 5
Min 2685 Max 2753
Avg 2713 S-D 26
ES 68
So Far, Wolf primers do seem to have low SD and ES but CCI #41 and Rem 7 1/2 can do quite well with powder/loads that like them. These loads were all for hunting and SD, but they all shot 3/4" to 1 1/4" 10 shot groups at 50yds. I know the CCI and Rem primers will perform reliably at below 0* temps. I have not tried the Wolfs at low temps with high tech bullets. I would not use H335 for general purpose hunting loads. It is too temperature sensitive for my taste. I showed it here FYI.
So Far, Wolf primers do seem to have low SD and ES but CCI #41 and Rem 7 1/2 can do quite well with powder/loads that like them.
That's really it there. Matching components up that work well together.
All of the Russian had nice S.D.s.
]
Please pardon my ignorance. SD?
thopkins22
03-06-14, 05:10
Please pardon my ignorance. SD?
Standard deviation. Think statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
polymorpheous
03-06-14, 05:15
This thread reminds me of why this forum is so valuable.
All too often I found myself getting caught up in the GD hubbub.
Took a break from the board for a few months.
Thanks for the info fellas!
Took a break from the board for a few months.
I noticed that. I think we all needed a break at one point or another. Good to see you back.
Sent via Tapatalk
This thread reminds me of why this forum is so valuable.
All too often I found myself getting caught up in the GD hubbub.
Took a break from the board for a few months.
Thanks for the info fellas!
I feel like the GD is an entirely different site.
polymorpheous
03-06-14, 16:10
I feel like the GD is an entirely different site.
Ain't that the truth.
Mark, I loaded up some of your 77gr. recipe over the summer.
I managed to pull this 10 round group out of my arse.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2884/9729971339_4096a89e08_b.jpg
A 16" BCM SS410 barrel mounted on a Vltor MUR was used. Vortex PST 1-4x.
Mixed brass.
Target was at 100yrds.
No idea on the FPS as I don't own a chrony yet.
I like the results so I bought a case of the Wolf SRM's.
I will be stocking up on these primers as they become more available.
I had a chance to chrono some more today. This load was 21.6 H322 with Tula KVB-5.56M primers. 10 shot group. 50yds, 1 ragged hole.
Ave Vel=2593 fps
SD=12
ES=43
Ave velocity dropped 78 fps when compared to the #41s, as did the SD & ES. Temp (19F) was slightly warmer than the previous days. I've shot loads with Varget, H335 & H322 in single to negative digits with no issues so far.
Same 20" SS410 BCM was used.
I have some Wolf's I'm anxious to try out in my 308 with some various powders. So far I'm digging these Russian primers...
Sent via Tapatalk
Mark, I loaded up some of your 77gr. recipe over the summer.
I managed to pull this 10 round group out of my arse.
That's nice. 10 round groups are hard as hell for me to shoot. Keeping them all at 9/10s MOA is good shooting to me.
So far I'm digging these Russian primers...
The only downside is an occasional damaged cup. Just inspect each 100 round tray, and you're good.
This is a 10 round group I shot awhile ago. 50 yards, Aimpoint PRO.
23.5 gr AA2230
55 gr Hornady Z-max
Wolf SRM
http://i.imgur.com/eEyAhV0.jpg
i haven't had a chance to play with the russian small rifle or 223 primers (still slogging my way through tens of thousands of cci 400) but i have done some chrono testing with large rifle in my bolt gun. SDs were nice, but my velocity dropped more than 40 fps. i don't think that's a bad thing as my assumption is it means peak pressure dropped and i could up my powder charge to max the area under the curve/velocity
good thread though. i will be trying wolf small rifle soon
polymorpheous
03-06-14, 23:47
That's nice. 10 round groups are hard as hell for me to shoot. Keeping them all at 9/10s MOA is good shooting to me.
Thanks.
I loaded these on a Lee single stage.
Is it feasible to set my Dillon up to load these in bulk?
Mark runs buckets of these rounds in high speed fashion. It has always astounded me how accurate mass produced ammo could perform. There are so many good points about this load and process, its crazy good.
Thanks.
I loaded these on a Lee single stage.
Is it feasible to set my Dillon up to load these in bulk?
It is definitely possible to run them through the dillon and maintain the same results.
Btw that is some excellent shooting with a 1-4, not to mention its a sub moa 10 round group. Subtract .224 and your at .682. So a sub 3/4 moa 10 shot group with a 1-4. All I can say is thats @!*#ing amazing shooting.
polymorpheous
03-07-14, 05:04
It is definitely possible to run them through the dillon and maintain the same results.
Btw that is some excellent shooting with a 1-4, not to mention its a sub moa 10 round group. Subtract .224 and your at .682. So a sub 3/4 moa 10 shot group with a 1-4. All I can say is thats @!*#ing amazing shooting.
Thanks! Appreciate the kind words.
I actually didn't know that I could shoot like that.
That was my second time shooting for groups.
Yeah.. as Pappabear mentioned... I load ALL OF THESE on the Dillon. I use the standard powder measure, a Forster Micrometer Competition seating die, and finish with a light LEE factory Crimp.
Interesting read - the Audette & Salazar articles are a great source. I remember the Audette stuff coming out years ago and it altered the universe.
Also interesting are the opinions on the CCI#41's.
Has anyone done a comparative test between the CCI version and the actual true USGI #41?
The reason I ask this is simple - decades of experience with the GI #41 have given me a huge level of respect for the USGI primer. All of my 600yd ammo was loaded in LC primed brass - factory primed w/ USGI#41's. I regulary produced my 600 ammo with SD's in the low teens and ES in the 20's. I never bothered withthe CCI version as I had so much of the primed stuff. FWIW - the USAMU did the same - they built phenomenal ammo using the GI#41 through alll sorts of variations and powders. I'd have to look at my books but two of the REALLY successful loads were built w/ LC primed brass, USGI #41 primers, 80gr SMK's and VV N-135 - known as the V-8 load. I can't remember the name of the other one right now, I want to say R80 - but it was the same except for powder - used REL 15.
I agree w/ MarkM as it really is about the combination.
My long line ammo (1000yds) used BR-4's w/ REL15 and 90gr VLD's - I can post the spec sheets on that ammo if folks are interested - ES ran in the teens and SD's were single digits.
One important factor in all this and it is addressed in the Audette & Salazar articles, proper seating "technique" is paramount. The primer must be square in the pocket, and seated uniformly all the way around. There also must be a level of compression of the anvil and the compound - super super important.
Improper technique can destroy accuracy & the numbers.
Comical to note also - I've tested a bunch of Federal Gold Medal Match 223 / 69gr SMK - the numbers; ES/SD etc are usually atrocious - but the stuff hammers. Go figure..
great topic.
Good points!
Makes me wonder how the VV N135 load above would l run with the Russian primer. Worse? Better?
And that's funny on the 69gr GMM. I've seen the opposite when trying to get a 175 gr SMK/ IMR 4064 load to work. Tried 5 different loads... all I think were single digit SDs, and none shot that great.
Comical to note also - I've tested a bunch of Federal Gold Medal Match 223 / 69gr SMK - the numbers; ES/SD etc are usually atrocious - but the stuff hammers. Go figure..
great topic.
that was my experience. the varget, GMM, SMK combination was awesome. I never used R15 in 223 but it was money in 308. i tried the N540 and got great numbers but accuracy was all over the place so i gave up. no idea how others had success with it.
Good points!
Makes me wonder how the VV N135 load above would l run with the Russian primer. Worse? Better?
And that's funny on the 69gr GMM. I've seen the opposite when trying to get a 175 gr SMK/ IMR 4064 load to work. Tried 5 different loads... all I think were single digit SDs, and none shot that great.
The N135 stuff was awesome, but the burn rate started to change. It was on the ragged edge of being too fast and later lots put it over the edge. I know guys who used N140 with success. I dabbled with it, but alway found that the REL15 shot lights out. If I had to guess, the Russian primers have a lower brissance and that MAY tame it a little bit - maybe enough to see better cycling. It wasn't unusual to see short shtroking with the N135 load - there were a lot of buffer springs that got trimmed on the line at Perry...
that was my experience. the varget, GMM, SMK combination was awesome. I never used R15 in 223 but it was money in 308. i tried the N540 and got great numbers but accuracy was all over the place so i gave up. no idea how others had success with it.
I played with e VV 5 series powders for a bit. Couple of problems - 1. PRICEY and 2. Bulky. They were marketed as High Energy and like you - I got great numbers, but never saw proof on the paper. In certain cartridges where a higher loading density was needed )no free space in the case) this powder really fit the bill. At the velocities I needed - my charges were all compressed. Just never saw the accuracy I needed. I am still sitting on 10 -12 lbs of the stuff...
REL15 in a 223 is like the proverbial 4895 in a 308 - easy easy easy - if you can't get it to shoot - something else is seriously wrong.
REL15 in a 223 is like the proverbial 4895 in a 308 - easy easy easy - if you can't get it to shoot - something else is seriously wrong.
I never shot either of those combos. I'll have to give both a try.
polymorpheous
03-07-14, 17:02
Interesting info on primer seating.
I have a cheap Lee hand primer. I can't stand it.
I use the Dillon to prime processed brass then I throw them in a bucket waiting to load.
The Dillon primer system is finicky, so that's why I prime rifle brass in it's own separate step.
It doesn't seem so finicky with my pistol primers.
Interesting info on primer seating.
I have a cheap Lee hand primer. I can't stand it.
I use the Dillon to prime processed brass then I throw them in a bucket waiting to load.
The Dillon primer system is finicky, so that's why I prime rifle brass in it's own separate step.
It doesn't seem so finicky with my pistol primers.
which version of Lee? I just got their newer design because I loved the 20 year old one I have but its got some galling on the lever and they don't make parts for it anymore. I don't like the newer one half as much...
polymorpheous
03-08-14, 12:57
which version of Lee? I just got their newer design because I loved the 20 year old one I have but its got some galling on the lever and they don't make parts for it anymore. I don't like the newer one half as much...
Crappy plastic one.
The cover is warped so primers flip over in it.
Crappy plastic one.
The cover is warped so primers flip over in it.
plastic? I didn't know they made a plastic handheld priming tool. do you mean the new square trays and covers?..
For precision ammo I seat primers a bit high with an RCBS hand held tool and do final seating with a Sinclair tool. This works for me and I don't have to handle single primers. For utility ammo I just use the APS priming system on the RCBS 2000 press.
For precision ammo I seat primers a bit high with an RCBS hand held tool and do final seating with a Sinclair tool. This works for me and I don't have to handle single primers. For utility ammo I just use the APS priming system on the RCBS 2000 press.
I recently switched hand priming tools from the old rcbs to the new universal. The difference is night and day. You get a really good feel for the primer bottoming out then a slight compression of the anvil.
I bought it just to not have to use shell holders to prime. When I first used it it was amazing how consistent it seats primers. I was never really happy with the original rcbs tool, but the new one is the last I will use.
DBR which rcbs unit do you have? If you have the old one you might want to try the new universal. It might eliminate a step in the loading process. If you have the universal have you used it to prime your precision loads. What was the outccome?
I recently switched hand priming tools from the old rcbs to the new universal. The difference is night and day. You get a really good feel for the primer bottoming out then a slight compression of the anvil.
I bought it just to not have to use shell holders to prime. When I first used it it was amazing how consistent it seats primers. I was never really happy with the original rcbs tool, but the new one is the last I will use.
I've been using the Lee Ergo Prime & I absolutely hate it. I looked at the universal RCBS & was wondering if it would have issues centering the brass properly over the anvil. I also read that some people felt the tray should be on the other side so the primers naturally flow towards the brass. Do you see any problems with either? I assume not??
Sent via Tapatalk
polymorpheous
03-10-14, 20:02
plastic? I didn't know they made a plastic handheld priming tool. do you mean the new square trays and covers?..
Yup.
A real POS.
jstone:
I have both RCBS tools. I agree, the Universal seats them so well - about -.003 - that I can't usually do much better with the Sinclair. The only thing the Sinclair does better is by clamping the case head it insures the primer is seated flat and square with reference to the case head not the extraction groove. The issue I have with the original RCBS tool is the throw on the lever allows much too much compression of the primer, at least mine does.
For precision ammo I seat primers a bit high with an RCBS hand held tool and do final seating with a Sinclair tool. This works for me and I don't have to handle single primers.
I really don't mind handling single primers. I have a suede mat that I dump 20-40 out a time on. It works good for keeping the primers for rolling off everywhere. I set it on the coffee table and prime while watching TV.
I've been using the Lee Ergo Prime & I absolutely hate it. I looked at the universal RCBS & was wondering if it would have issues centering the brass properly over the anvil. I also read that some people felt the tray should be on the other side so the primers naturally flow towards the brass. Do you see any problems with either? I assume not??
Sent via Tapatalk
I have not had any issues. Primers are always centered, and even if the tray were on the other side it would not make any difference. It feeds just fine until you get down to less than 10. Then you just have to tilt it a little bit more to get the last primers to feed. If I had to do it over again I would buy it again everytime.
jstone:
I have both RCBS tools. I agree, the Universal seats them so well - about -.003 - that I can't usually do much better with the Sinclair. The only thing the Sinclair does better is by clamping the case head it insures the primer is seated flat and square with reference to the case head not the extraction groove. The issue I have with the original RCBS tool is the throw on the lever allows much too much compression of the primer, at least mine does.
Thanks for the info. I have not noticed any over compression. I always feel the the primer bottom out on the pocket then a minimum amount of compression and the handle has no more travel. The original gave me no compression and a lot of times it would not even seet the primers flush. I may have to look into the Sinclair. I did not know it grabbed the case head. I thought it would be like all the others and grab the case by the extractor groove.
I may have to look into the Sinclair. I did not know it grabbed the case head. I thought it would be like all the others and grab the case by the extractor groove.
The sinclair uses a modified shell holder. You turn the top of the tool down to tension the head down onto the tool... then prime.
Yup.
A real POS.
yeah, not happy with the square tray. it seems it got all lawyered up with the new elevation system and the division that keeps the primers feeding in a single file. show how you can take anything good and make it worse...
thopkins22
03-11-14, 13:32
It seems to me that the biggest benefit of priming off of the press is being able to tell when the primer pockets are getting loose(which for me is usually one of the first signs that my brass is on its last loading.) That and with .308 the brass is coming off of the press after being resized anyway, whereas my 9mm never comes off the press and I've gotten more lax about trimming .223 every single loading(upon seeing the lengths BH and others were confident was safe to put out in their remanufactured lines.)
I use the RCBS universal for all large primers(only .308 at this point,) and like it quite a bit. The plastic primer tray kind of sucks, but isn't unusable. The reason I initially bought it was that I didn't want to change the priming system on the 550, as I load a hell of a lot of 9mm for competition and moderate amounts of blasting .223 and just felt like leaving it set up the way it was and only changing the toolhead for other calibers(I do know of folks that bought a second machine to set up for large primers which makes sense if you have the cash and the space.) Having been spoiled by Dillon's flip tray, I kind of wish someone would make something of comparable quality for the RCBS primer which I like in every other aspect.
Is there a quantifiable difference between various methods of priming? Or is it simply a small variable that can effect SD as ignition is ever so slightly altered from one depth to the next? And at that point shouldn't we be reaming the pockets and flash holes? I'm not opposed to doing it for a noticeable gain, but at some point I'm not shooting bench rest competitions either and .05" doesn't mean a whole lot to me.
and I've gotten more lax about trimming .223 every single loading(upon seeing the lengths BH and others were confident was safe to put out in their remanufactured lines.)
Indeed. I've even backed my Giraud off .007" to let my brass grow a little longer. Trimming once fired LC can be like the pedicure seen in DUMB AND DUMBER.
The old type round primer tray works with the new "universal" RCBS tool and I am pretty sure you can buy one direct from RCBS as a replacement part. This is the tray I use.
The worst new, never fired, brass I have used is the Lake City brass. Some of it has been as much as .015 longer than max and some of it is shorter than min.
Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, I am convinced a lot of the once fired LC brass went through a SAW and not an AR. This is judging by the amount of shoulder setback required and measurements with an RCBS case micrometer before processing. Fortunately the alloy LC uses is very tough and if properly resized and trimmed the first time I think it is as good or better than most commercial brass.
The way I process my fired brass trims it every time and I would say about half the cases get hit at least a bit by the cutter. This is after firing in Colt, DD and BC NATO chambered barrels using charges about halfway between SAAMI and NATO pressure.
I recently switched hand priming tools from the old rcbs to the new universal. The difference is night and day. You get a really good feel for the primer bottoming out then a slight compression of the anvil.
I bought it just to not have to use shell holders to prime. When I first used it it was amazing how consistent it seats primers. I was never really happy with the original rcbs tool, but the new one is the last I will use.
DBR which rcbs unit do you have? If you have the old one you might want to try the new universal. It might eliminate a step in the loading process. If you have the universal have you used it to prime your precision loads. What was the outccome?
Good call on the RCBS universal tool. I just picked one up today and although I don't have a ton of rounds through it yet, I noticed the difference immediately. My Lee is getting mothballed.
Thanks
Sent via Tapatalk
Good call on the RCBS universal tool. I just picked one up today and although I don't have a ton of rounds through it yet, I noticed the difference immediately. My Lee is getting mothballed.
Thanks
Sent via Tapatalk
I have never used the lee but I know the rcbs universal is damn good. Its good to hear you like it as well Ryno12. If the lee is as bad or worse than the old rcbs I know how you feel.
It is a good feeling to see your primers being seated so consistently and easy. One after another. I used to have to check every primer to see if it was seated right. Once I got the new tool it took a couple loading sessions for me to not constantly check the primers.
I think the texture of the Lee tray flips the primers better than the RCBS and I'm also not sure if I like how the cover is fastened to the tray from the center on the RCBS. It'll take some getting used to. The real issue of actually seating the primers, the RCBS is heads and shoulders above the Lee.
If I could only combine both their positive attributes, I'd have one hell of a hand primer.
(I'm gonna leave them alone together overnight and see what happens.) :p
Sent via Tapatalk
If you can find a round tray from the original it is much better. It still has the center attachment, but I like it better than the square tray. I still use the square tray if I want to put over 200 primers in it.
They also had the other hand primer that uses a shell holder. The tray on that one was round. Is that the one you mean or is there a third, older style?
Sent via Tapatalk
Thats the one. If you call rcbs they should be able to send you one. They probably wont even charge you. Just tell them your looking for the round one that goes with the old model.
Will do. Thanks for the tip.
Sent via Tapatalk
ok, i put barrel #6 on my match rifle and started working up loads
http://precisionmultigun.com/pics/bighornsentinel2.jpg
I'm testing RP brass compared to my old Lapua. I'm also testing Wolf primers (compared to my old Fed GMM 210Ms).
All brass is 243win necked up and then fireformed to 260AI.
All loads are 44.36g R17 on the nuggets (using acculab scale)
All bullets are 140g Berger Hybrids
All groups are 5 rounds.
All units are feet per sec
All measurements taken with magnetospeed chrony
#1*
Lapua Brass, Wolf primers
AVG 3046 fps
SD 11
ES 31
#2*
Lapua brass, Wolf primers
AVG 3045
SD 7
ES 19
#3
RP brass, Wolf Primer
AVG 2979
SD 6
ES 16
#4
RP brass, GM210M primer
AVG 2985
SD 6
ES 19
Summary:
While this sample size is pretty dang small, so I'd hesitate to draw too many conclusions, I'm reasonably confident in the following:
Lapua brass shoots a good bit faster (65 fps) than RP brass (in this load/gun)
With 6 fps difference in the averages, identical SD , and 3 fps difference in the ES, I'd say there's no statistical difference in velocity between wolf and GM210M primers (edit, yeah i know there's technically a statistically significant difference, but i mean practically, 6 fps is not going to make a difference on a target inside the effective range of this cartridge)
-------
This same lapua brass had previously resulted in several 5-round groups with SD of 1 and ES of 4-6 fps. But that was with different barrel/reamer, and much different neck tension and seating depth. And this lapua brass had previously been fired in a different chamber made by a different reamer. So I'm hopeful that I can improve these numbers quite a bit.
*the difference in the two lapua loads is this http://www.rwhart.com/store/proddetail.asp?prod=dhb-f-swage-lg
Several barrels ago, I fired the lapua brass once, and it stretched the primer pocket out so that a GM210M falls right out. (i.e. if you turn it upside down, it falls out) I bought this tool last week to attempt to salvage this brass. After attempting to use this on Lapua, Hornady and Win brass with no success (GM210M still falls out) I gave up. Fortunately, the larger wolf primers seat firmly and won't fall out. But I decided to try 5 that I'd used the tool on, just to see if it made a difference, because some of the reviews I'd read said it had affected accuracy.
After this firing, wolf primers still seat
These are the LARGE RIFLE Wolf? That's interesting. I've never been able to try those. I tested WLR (win large rifle) against 210Ms for my .308 and they had the same Velocity and S.D. 210Ms are kinda hard to find here lately.
I've been sitting 1k of the large Wolfs that I've been wanting to test in my 308. This'll light a fire under my ass.
Sent via Tapatalk
markm, yep. large rifle wolf.
testing continued this morning. The Lapuas aren't working out so I guess i'm going to put them back on the shelf. I increased the charge on the RP / Wolf combo from 44.36 to 44.80 and velocity increased to 2997 AVG (my target is a hair over 3000 fps). (SD 6, ES 15). I also seated them 15 thou deeper and that resulted in a significant improvement in accuracy. They are cloverleafing now where previously they were maybe .8 MOA.
Heading out again now to test another 2 thou deeper depth and 44.92g charge. If they shoot, I'm calling it done.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.