Primer showdown: WOLF vs. CCI #41

[markm]

Well, as you know markm it's a "dry" heat, so it's not bad!

Possible rain in this weekend forecast... which probably means brutal humidity with 3 drops of rain

[AndyLate]

It is a normal thing for primers to flatten with very light loads as the case walls do not stick to the chamber and the case slides backwards while the chamber is still under pressure.

Usually you also see smoky carbon on the case as exhaust gases get between the case and the chamber.

I see it all the time with blooper loads in 7x57 Mausers.

That is true, however I was referring to medium power loads, like 24.5 gr TAC behind a 55 gr pill.

Andy

[markm]

That is true, however I was referring to medium power loads, like 24.5 gr TAC behind a 55 gr pill.

Andy

I never had any noticeable issues with that combo when I used to load it.

[AndyLate]

I never had any noticeable issues with that combo when I used to load it.

I used that load as an example of medium pressure because it is somewhat well known. The lot of CCI 400 primers I was using (I bought a case of 5000) showed flattened primers with that and similar loads.

I had no issues with them outside of that false indicator of high pressure and carefully assembled loads showed good accuracy.

Online research showed me that my experience was not unique, so I didn't lose any sleep over it. Since I was reloading primarily for ARs, I picked up some CCI 41s and have not used the 400 primers again.

I absolutely accept it may have been the lot primers I used, my loading technique, or my rifles. I also accept the primers were and are safe.

Andy

[markm]

I'd bet it's just the thinner cup on the 400s being more flexible. I really lean more on head swipes for excess pressure indication. I need to hustle up Friday night and load 100 of the CCI 400s. I bet they're just right.

[markm]

More awful performance from the CCI primers.

I chrono'd the 41s agains the 400s as posted and here's the results. (The 41s only shot 33 fps faster. I say "only" but compared to the Wolf spread 33 fps is much lower)

The load is TAC 22.3 gr, loaded on 550B press, 85 gr Match Burner, and Magneto speed chrono on a 20" bolt gun.

CCI 41s

2650 fps

102 ES (WTF?)

37 SD (again WTF?)


The CCI 400s:

2617 FPS

38 ES

38 SD.

[1168]

More awful performance from the CCI primers.

I chrono'd the 41s agains the 400s as posted and here's the results. (The 41s only shot 33 fps faster. I say "only" but compared to the Wolf spread 33 fps is much lower)

The load is TAC 22.3 gr, loaded on 550B press, 85 gr Match Burner, and Magneto speed chrono on a 20" bolt gun.

CCI 41s

2650 fps

102 ES (WTF?)

37 SD (again WTF?)


The CCI 400s:

2617 FPS

38 ES

38 SD.


2560

If you look at my chrono thread, most all of the 5.56 is done with 41s on a progressive, so I know they can do better than 102es/37sd. Ignore those first CFE223 loads on the first page; those sucked badly.

Maybe Tac hates 41s.

[markm]

Who knows? The huge spread was from one round that dipped in velocity, and it actually hit high on paper. Very weird. I'd think that TAC is metering pretty consistently even in the progressive press.

[Pappabear]

All I can think is what some poor bastard would go through in finding a good load if they only had CCI primers. They have to be better with other bullets but good God.

PB

[markm]

I have to do one last test with WOLF primers. They're not super reliable with ball powder, but I'm dying to find out if the CCIs are really that bad or if there's something else going on.