Tweet
n; within each category, there are two sizes.
Size Matters
The first bit of useful trivia is that even though Small Rifle and Small Pistol primer pockets share the same depth specification, Large Rifle and Large Pistol primers do not. The standard pocket for a Large Pistol primer is somewhat shallower than its Large Rifle counterpart, specifically, 0.008 to 0.009 inch less.
A number of handloaders found this out when one of the “mega-magnum” handgun cartridges appeared a few years back. Original cases were formed for Large Pistol primers. Some reloaders decided to switch to Large Rifle primers to better handle the high pressures, and they found the rifle primers stood proud of the case head, an unpleasant situation in a high-recoil revolver cartridge.
Primer EquivalencyThere have been reams written about how various brands of primers compare. Tests to compare the effects of primer substitution have been published for years. I’ve been a lab rat long enough to understand that road is fraught with potholes.
We heard a number of requests to add a primer chart in the Speer manuals I wrote showing what the various primer makers call their primer types. Note that there are no such charts in my books. Why? First, switching primer brands from what we used in the manual could create an unsafe condition. Second is accuracy of information. One of the last Speer manuals before I took over printed a nice chart of primer sizes and manufacturers’ numbers. Almost before the first printing was sold out, one company completely changed its numbering system, and a foreign brand listed became unavailable. Hardcover books are almost like engraving stuff in stone, and I did not want a chart—that may be obsolete before the book ran its course—to create problems.
As for the “which is hotter/colder” discussion, a similar conundrum exists: primer specification change. CCI overhauled its entire primer line in 1989. We were careful to make certain that the new primers could share load data created with the older versions, but not every change is announced. Another time, shortly after a writer friend of mine had a lab shoot a complete series of rifle ammo with the only difference being the primers, another primer maker came up with a change that affected the outcome of that test.
Here’s a classic example of a printed mistake being taken as gospel: Another company’s reloading manual had a chart of primer numbers and types that incorrectly showed the CCI Benchrest primer as being interchangeable with the CCI Magnum primer. This was perpetuated over several editions of that manual before we convinced that company to correct it. People would call CCI and demand that our Benchrest primer was a Magnum because it was printed that way in another company’s manual.
Bottom line: If I publish a primer performance equivalency chart today, it will soon be obsolete, and some poor sod will try substituting primers based on invalid information. I apologize to the nice person who recently wrote my editor suggesting I do a handgun primer equivalency test, but it can lead to too much grief. Stick with published and current load recipes.
Magnum Primers: Use As Directed
Most primer makers offer a standard and a Magnum primer in each size and application. The Magnum primer offers more power for challenging ignition scenarios. A large-capacity case, a heavily deterred propellant, or extremely cold weather (less than 20 degrees Fahrenheit) typically makes the Magnum primer desirable.
There are two ways to make a Magnum primer—either use more of the standard chemical mix to provide a longer-burning flame or change the mix to one with more aggressive burn characteristics. Prior to 1989, CCI used the first option in Magnum Rifle primers. After that, we switched to a mix optimized for spherical propellants that produced a 24-percent increase in flame temperature and a 16-percent boost in gas volume.
Literature from some propellant manufactures often says that their products do not require Magnum primers. This is perceived as a good thing because Magnum primers are made in smaller quantities and require more chemicals; therefore, they are more expensive. However, I had to take a different view, one based on real-world issues.
We tested loads at both maximum normal pressures and at the starting loads (some labs calculate start loads—we shot them). Standard primers caused no ignition issues at the max load but posted higher extreme variations in pressure and velocity in the lower pressure regimes of the start loads. In extreme cases, the start loads produced short delayed firings—probably in the range of 20 to 40 milliseconds but detectible to an experienced ballistician. Switching that propellant to a Magnum primer smoothed out the performance across the useful range of charge weights and completely eliminated the delays.
If I’ve recommended a Magnum primer in reloading data I’ve developed, it’s because my lab results show it’s needed.
A Myth-Conception
Like others who reloaded in the 1950s and ’60s, I heard the old mantra, “CCI primer cups are hard.” I used CCI primers long before I dreamed I’d be working for the company, and I never had problems. I had talked to other hand-loaders who claimed to have had some trouble. Arriving at CCI/Speer in 1987, I found out the real story.
The metal cups were neither harder nor softer than any other brand. However, the early noncorrosive primer mixes that Dick Speer and Dr. Victor Jasitis developed had one difference from many other primer products at the time—the dried pellet was rather brittle. This was not a problem unless the loader tried seating primers too deeply; in that case the anvil was forced almost to the cup, and the brittle pellet broke away from the anvil. With little mix under the ti
p of the overseated anvil, a misfire was lurking. I decided the reason I never had a problem was that I seated off-press with hand tools that let me feel the seating.
The mix that did not like overseating was retired years before I arrived in Lewiston. It just goes to show how old perceptions can linger even in the face of data and facts.
Size Matters
The first bit of useful trivia is that even though Small Rifle and Small Pistol primer pockets share the same depth specification, Large Rifle and Large Pistol primers do not. The standard pocket for a Large Pistol primer is somewhat shallower than its Large Rifle counterpart, specifically, 0.008 to 0.009 inch less.
A number of handloaders found this out when one of the “mega-magnum” handgun cartridges appeared a few years back. Original cases were formed for Large Pistol primers. Some reloaders decided to switch to Large Rifle primers to better handle the high pressures, and they found the rifle primers stood proud of the case head, an unpleasant situation in a high-recoil revolver cartridge.
Primer EquivalencyThere have been reams written about how various brands of primers compare. Tests to compare the effects of primer substitution have been published for years. I’ve been a lab rat long enough to understand that road is fraught with potholes.
We heard a number of requests to add a primer chart in the Speer manuals I wrote showing what the various primer makers call their primer types. Note that there are no such charts in my books. Why? First, switching primer brands from what we used in the manual could create an unsafe condition. Second is accuracy of information. One of the last Speer manuals before I took over printed a nice chart of primer sizes and manufacturers’ numbers. Almost before the first printing was sold out, one company completely changed its numbering system, and a foreign brand listed became unavailable. Hardcover books are almost like engraving stuff in stone, and I did not want a chart—that may be obsolete before the book ran its course—to create problems.
As for the “which is hotter/colder” discussion, a similar conundrum exists: primer specification change. CCI overhauled its entire primer line in 1989. We were careful to make certain that the new primers could share load data created with the older versions, but not every change is announced. Another time, shortly after a writer friend of mine had a lab shoot a complete series of rifle ammo with the only difference being the primers, another primer maker came up with a change that affected the outcome of that test.
Here’s a classic example of a printed mistake being taken as gospel: Another company’s reloading manual had a chart of primer numbers and types that incorrectly showed the CCI Benchrest primer as being interchangeable with the CCI Magnum primer. This was perpetuated over several editions of that manual before we convinced that company to correct it. People would call CCI and demand that our Benchrest primer was a Magnum because it was printed that way in another company’s manual.
Bottom line: If I publish a primer performance equivalency chart today, it will soon be obsolete, and some poor sod will try substituting primers based on invalid information. I apologize to the nice person who recently wrote my editor suggesting I do a handgun primer equivalency test, but it can lead to too much grief. Stick with published and current load recipes.
Magnum Primers: Use As Directed
Most primer makers offer a standard and a Magnum primer in each size and application. The Magnum primer offers more power for challenging ignition scenarios. A large-capacity case, a heavily deterred propellant, or extremely cold weather (less than 20 degrees Fahrenheit) typically makes the Magnum primer desirable.
There are two ways to make a Magnum primer—either use more of the standard chemical mix to provide a longer-burning flame or change the mix to one with more aggressive burn characteristics. Prior to 1989, CCI used the first option in Magnum Rifle primers. After that, we switched to a mix optimized for spherical propellants that produced a 24-percent increase in flame temperature and a 16-percent boost in gas volume.
Literature from some propellant manufactures often says that their products do not require Magnum primers. This is perceived as a good thing because Magnum primers are made in smaller quantities and require more chemicals; therefore, they are more expensive. However, I had to take a different view, one based on real-world issues.
We tested loads at both maximum normal pressures and at the starting loads (some labs calculate start loads—we shot them). Standard primers caused no ignition issues at the max load but posted higher extreme variations in pressure and velocity in the lower pressure regimes of the start loads. In extreme cases, the start loads produced short delayed firings—probably in the range of 20 to 40 milliseconds but detectible to an experienced ballistician. Switching that propellant to a Magnum primer smoothed out the performance across the useful range of charge weights and completely eliminated the delays.
If I’ve recommended a Magnum primer in reloading data I’ve developed, it’s because my lab results show it’s needed.
A Myth-Conception
Like others who reloaded in the 1950s and ’60s, I heard the old mantra, “CCI primer cups are hard.” I used CCI primers long before I dreamed I’d be working for the company, and I never had problems. I had talked to other hand-loaders who claimed to have had some trouble. Arriving at CCI/Speer in 1987, I found out the real story.
The metal cups were neither harder nor softer than any other brand. However, the early noncorrosive primer mixes that Dick Speer and Dr. Victor Jasitis developed had one difference from many other primer products at the time—the dried pellet was rather brittle. This was not a problem unless the loader tried seating primers too deeply; in that case the anvil was forced almost to the cup, and the brittle pellet broke away from the anvil. With little mix under the ti
p of the overseated anvil, a misfire was lurking. I decided the reason I never had a problem was that I seated off-press with hand tools that let me feel the seating.
The mix that did not like overseating was retired years before I arrived in Lewiston. It just goes to show how old perceptions can linger even in the face of data and facts.
Comment