Effect of different primers on loads.

[Bwana]

I didn't want to hijack metweezer's thread to pass this info along. Over a decade ago I did quite a bit of experimentation concerning the effect of different primers on loads, primarily with the 44 Mag. This was accomplished by using a Sinclair carbide rifle primer pocket uniformer to make the 44 Mag primer pockets have the depth of large rifle pockets.
This allowed me to use large rifle and small pistol/rifle in those cases and still use large pistol primers in unaltered cases. The small primers were used by taking fired large pistol cup and removing the firing pin indentation then dropping the small primer of your choice inside it and seating. This results in a "flush" primer; but, having fired hundreds of these it hasn't been an issue. I know, there will be a couple who will say that I've just been lucky. So if it makes you feel better, say it, it won't hurt my feelings or change a thing.
The Data: The gun was a stainless SBH with a 8" bbl. It was a 10 1/2" but I had a DW VH shroud fitted to it with the original bbl modified.
The cases were W-W with the deepened pockets. Bullet was the Hornady 240 XTP seated to canalure. The charge was 24gr of a powder you can't buy. OAL 1.61" They were fired on 12-26-01. Air temp 45 degrees.

Primer avg vel case dia (all rounds were fired from the same chamber and therefore the case pressure ring measurement was relative to load and not the chamber)

WSP 1345 .46075
WSR 1350 .46075
CCI 400 1335 .4605
WSPM 1345 .4605+
CCI 550 1365 .46075
CCI 41 1375 .46075
WLR 1465 .461
WLP 1390 .46075+

There was easy extraction with all rounds fired. The WLP rounds used unmodified cases. It's kind of funny that metweezer's thread came up as the day before I was digging around in the back of one my shelves full of stuff when I found 100 cases that had been modified and were primed. So yesterday I loaded fifteen of those up with 24gr of H-110 and my 263gr Hybrids, 1.67" oal. I also loaded up another fifteen with WLP with the same load. Shot them today at 25yds off the bench and they were identical groups, 2.25" and round although the dual primed loads did have a slight vertical seperation within the 2.25" group.
So there it is for what it's worth.

Sorry, I didn't realize that a four letter word starting with "c" and generally used in place of "stuff" was not allowed. My apologies.

[44man]

What does too much primer pressure do? It pushes out the boolit before good ignition and a SR primer has a lot with little heat.
LR primers can increase pressures drastically.
What you want is fire, lots of fire with low pressure.
The .44 works best (as does a .45 Colt) with a standard LP primer, with any powder. I use nothing but Fed 150's.
The SBH should do 1" and under at 50 yards. If I use a LP magnum primer, my groups triple.
Even Federal discovered that the 150 is better and load with them. I have used the 150 since the early 80's for IHMSA and now for all of my hunting loads with 296.
Your work has been with velocity, not what you need, you should look for accuracy first. Nothing you shoot cares about a few FPS.
I have worked with the .44 since 1956 and the case does not like primer pressure.
This is what you need to look for. 50 yards with the RD 265 gr and my 330 gr 200 yards, cast, the XTP will do better. Not much! [smilie=l: Yes, standard primers and 296.

[Bwana]

"Your work has been with velocity, not what you need, you should look for accuracy first. Nothing you shoot cares about a few FPS."

Actually, my "need" at the time was to find out the effect of different primers on velocity. Accuracy was not a consideration with this test. The test was a success. It was repeated using other bullets/boolits and other powders. If you gained nothing from it, so be it.

[44man]

"Your work has been with velocity, not what you need, you should look for accuracy first. Nothing you shoot cares about a few FPS."

Actually, my "need" at the time was to find out the effect of different primers on velocity. Accuracy was not a consideration with this test. The test was a success. It was repeated using other bullets/boolits and other powders. If you gained nothing from it, so be it.
No reflection on your work because I have also been there and done that.
You have done more then most by testing and that is what everyone really should do.
The scary thing is that a LR primer in the wrong case can increase pressures a LOT without increasing velocity worth note.
You have to look at the .475 Linebaugh. Parent case is the 45-70 that takes a LR primer. Research when I first got my gun has shown the LR primer should not be used because of pressure issues. When the cartridge gets smaller, the issue can be more dangerous.
There are a lot of calibers that powder makers have not tested, listed loads for and even manuals do not have them. Before ever making one load, research has to be done to find safe starting and max loads. To read and follow what someone else has done can put you over the top.
I might have done more primer work in 56 years then almost anyone so it is not a light subject for me. I value my health and guns too much.
You might gain a few fps but you have no idea what your pressure is.
Look at shotgun loading info that calls for a certain primer, it is true. I seen a shotgun destroyed just from a primer change after shooting thousands of loads with the proper one but the fellow ran out and went to another.
I don't gain much from your post because you tread where Angels fear to go. [smilie=s:

[cbrick]

Bwana, I gotta go with 44man on this. Gaining a few fps has little to no meaning and switching from a standard large pistol primer to a large rifle primer can and does effect pressure. Your original test was at 45 degree air temp, this same test at 90+ could well give unexpected and possibly dangerous results with your already at or very near top end loads. The pressure peak is an important aspect of a safe load, by spiking the pressure early for the purpose of a few fps could well be an ill-conceived idea.

Rick

[Bwana]

"Gaining a few fps has little to no meaning and switching from a standard large pistol primer to a large rifle primer can and does effect pressure."
The data clearly shows that difference between LP and LR primers.
"Your original test was at 45 degree air temp, this same test at 90+ could well give unexpected and possibly dangerous results with your already at or very near top end loads."
And if the test was done at 90+ degrees the load would have been adjusted accordingly.
"The pressure peak is an important aspect of a safe load, by spiking the pressure early for the purpose of a few fps could well be an ill-conceived idea."
While true, I fail to see how you conclude this happened in this case.
My point in sharing the data was to provide info that most do not have the time, resources, or inclination to generate. The data is raw and I make no recommendation regarding it.
Like anything else, if you don't understand what's going on perhaps you are better off not messing with it. If you do, you can apply it as you see fit.

[cbrick]

While true, I fail to see how you conclude this happened in this case.

I didn't, I said it could well give unexpected and possibly dangerous results. That is a far cry from "it happened".


Like anything else, if you don't understand what's going on perhaps you are better off not messing with it. If you do, you can apply it as you see fit.

I understand this situation quite well thank you and yes, I have already applied it as I see fit including being grateful that your not sitting at the range next to me.

If you wish to play with fire and endanger yourself have it but others reading this that may not know the dangers of primer switching such as your "test" and should have to opportunity read some reality.

Rick

[wiljen]

Ok, before this goes any further downhill, I think what Bwana states is part of "reality".

I think Bwana has a valid point that within controlled circumstances, this is a safe practice when you have the tools and data to back it and understand the limits of those conditions.

I think Rick has a point that trading primers without knowing the bounds of the circumstance (ie what temperature ranges are safe) can and will lead to potential problems. They may be as small as stiff bolt lift or as large as a ruined firearm and injury to the shooter.

Both points should be considered by any shooter thinking about trading primers and they should be certain they have a full understanding of the situation before deciding to do so.

However, it is folly to think that trading primers and using rifle primers in what are considered handgun rounds doesn't happen on a fairly regular basis and is thus very much part of reality.

In as much, you might wanna rephrase or retract that last comment as I think it was a bit more than intended.

[cbrick]

wiljen, here is a reality. He stated a 44 Mag top end load - 24.0 gr of H-110 with 263 gr bullet. He then switched to a large rifle primer in place of a large pistol primer which will increase the pressure/time curve. Many people read this site with experience levels from absolutely none to extremely experienced. If Bwana wants to play with something this potentially dangerous more power to him but those with little to no experience need to understand the possible consequences. That is reality.

There are wannabe’s that become reloaders that with years of experience become handloaders. Bwana’s post came across, at least to me, as something that could/should be tried and experimented with. That is not reality and those without enough experience to fully understand possible consequences should never attempt such experiments. This is the purpose of my posts in this thread and of my use of “reality”.

Rick

[felix]

CCI 550 1365 .46075
CCI 41 1375 .46075

What I have expected for years. Same primer? Military production overflow repackaged? It seems to me that CCI intentionally produces only military spec primers, ever since the beginning of the company's formation to supply the arsenals during WW One, or was it Two? ... felix

[44man]

Ok, before this goes any further downhill, I think what Bwana states is part of "reality".

I think Bwana has a valid point that within controlled circumstances, this is a safe practice when you have the tools and data to back it and understand the limits of those conditions.

I think Rick has a point that trading primers without knowing the bounds of the circumstance (ie what temperature ranges are safe) can and will lead to potential problems. They may be as small as stiff bolt lift or as large as a ruined firearm and injury to the shooter.

Both points should be considered by any shooter thinking about trading primers and they should be certain they have a full understanding of the situation before deciding to do so.

However, it is folly to think that trading primers and using rifle primers in what are considered handgun rounds doesn't happen on a fairly regular basis and is thus very much part of reality.

In as much, you might wanna rephrase or retract that last comment as I think it was a bit more than intended.
I agree with Cbrick. It takes vast experience to fool with out of bounds stuff and is NOT something a new loader should ever read.
He and I believe in safety before all else. I commend him with what he has said, fear for our fellow shooters is a real thing.
You are doing a good job but we do not know if the tests were safe. I feel they were way out of bounds with loads used. Your comments are correct and as a good moderator you need to look at all things. Were the tests within safety limits? They sound to me that max loads were used with only a primer change. That scares me to no end. A bad comment can be overlooked but never, ever, ever a safety issue.

[Bwana]

[QUOTE=cbrick;1432285]wiljen, here is a reality. He stated a 44 Mag top end load - 24.0 gr of H-110 with 263 gr bullet. He then switched to a large rifle primer in place of a large pistol primer which will increase the pressure/time curve. Many people read this site with experience levels from absolutely none to extremely experienced. If Bwana wants to play with something this potentially dangerous more power to him but those with little to no experience need to understand the possible consequences. That is reality.

There are wannabe’s that become reloaders that with years of experience become handloaders. Bwana’s post came across, at least to me, as something that could/should be tried and experimented with. That is not reality and those without enough experience to fully understand possible consequences should never attempt such experiments. This is the purpose of my posts in this thread and of my use of “reality”.

You don't read very well, do you? The load used in the test was with a powder which you can not buy. That is clearly stated. It was not 296 or H-110.
The load used later which did use H-110 was with WLP and a dual primer load using WSPM primers. It's too bad that to try to make the point you keep insisting on trying to make you have to print a lie. I take exception to you and cbrick stating falsehoods and commiting libel in the process. I have tried to handle you two in the "proper" way; but, you just keep on digging. Why don't you two just admit your biased assualt on me is wrong and apologize? Are you going to hide behind your post count. Well that might work for some; but, it doesn't work for me. The ball is in your court.

[Larry Gibson]

Actually I find Bwana's experiment interesting. I have to agree that "wannabe's" or "newbie's" could get into trouble attempting something like this but I doubt any of them have the Sinclair primer pocket uniformer. I doubt they would get one just to try this either. They can get into trouble easy enough with just regular loads so why go to this trouble........

Anyways I do find this experiment interesting as mentioned. There is an assumption that a "magnum" primer automatically increases pressure. I'm not so sure of that as some of my tests with magnum vs standard primers in the 357, 41 and 44 magnums show. For those reading this who don't know, I measure pressures with an Oehler M43. As an example; in the test of Hercules vs Alliant 2400 in the 44 magnum with a charge of 21 gr under the RCBS 44-250-K bullet of both powders with CCI300 and 350 primers. The velocity and psi's were well within the normal varience of different test strings so based on a single test string of 10 shots each I would not say the magnum primer raised the psi. The 4 test strings were close enough to be called the same.

This brings me to a question for Bwana; how many test shots in each of these tests?

WSP 1345 .46075
WSR 1350 .46075
CCI 400 1335 .4605
WSPM 1345 .4605+
CCI 550 1365 .46075
CCI 41 1375 .46075
WLR 1465 .461
WLP 1390 .46075+

Larry Gibson

[44man]

No falsehoods, only safety to fellow shooters.
The problem with high pressure primers is not the powder but the fact that they push boolits way into the bore before ignition and can cause the dreaded SEE event. The cylinder gap pressure release can save you or kill you if it does not release the pressure.
You fool with things you should not.
The WLP primer you mention is fine but what is a dual WSPM load?
I and a few others need to see where we are telling a lie.
I would trust Cbrick every day of the week but I would never shoot your loads.
This started about LR primers in the .44 and now you are changing things.
Where do you get a powder that no one can buy? How do you know the burn characteristics? What pressure measuring devises do you have? Have you sent samples to the HP White lab?
Since you have a powder "we can't buy" how does it reflect on the rest of us?

[Gussy]

I tested a lot of primers several yrs back. The power difference is at times extreme from one brand/type to another. I posted a chart on my web page ( www.castingstuff.com under primer test in the reference section) and it should be obvious that problems CAN occur if you substitute the wrong primer. A strong primer pushing a bullet far out before full ignition is akin to a barrel obstruction in some cases.

[Whistler]

The cylinder gap pressure release can save you or kill you if it does not release the pressure.

This caught my eye. When loading for my BFR .444 Marlin I noticed that when going from slow powder (Vihtavuori N130) to a relatively fast powder (N110) the "muzzle flash" went from the muzzle to the cylinder gap.

Looking at this picture you can clearly see where the pressure dumps in my BFR:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x283/K-Man75/Skytte/Image5.jpg

Here is the gap flash from my Super Redhawk (unfortunately I do not have one of the BFR, you'll have to take my word that it behave the same as the SRH with fast powders):

http://www.requiem.se/~whistler/Pistolskytte/090117/album/slides/IMG_6297.JPG

And here is my friend's Dan Wesson .445 Supermag, using N110 as well:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x283/K-Man75/Skytte/OlofB-445.jpg

[Bwana]

Larry Gibson, there were 10 rounds in each of the original test loads. As stated, they were all fired in the same chamber which was the one to the left of the "S" mark on the rear of the cylinder. This enabled me to make a reliable pressure comparision using the pressure ring method.
Anyone wanting further info on this test or related topics feel free to contact me. Oh, 44man and cbrick need not apply.

[44man]

Actually I find Bwana's experiment interesting. I have to agree that "wannabe's" or "newbie's" could get into trouble attempting something like this but I doubt any of them have the Sinclair primer pocket uniformer. I doubt they would get one just to try this either. They can get into trouble easy enough with just regular loads so why go to this trouble........

Anyways I do find this experiment interesting as mentioned. There is an assumption that a "magnum" primer automatically increases pressure. I'm not so sure of that as some of my tests with magnum vs standard primers in the 357, 41 and 44 magnums show. For those reading this who don't know, I measure pressures with an Oehler M43. As an example; in the test of Hercules vs Alliant 2400 in the 44 magnum with a charge of 21 gr under the RCBS 44-250-K bullet of both powders with CCI300 and 350 primers. The velocity and psi's were well within the normal varience of different test strings so based on a single test string of 10 shots each I would not say the magnum primer raised the psi. The 4 test strings were close enough to be called the same.

This brings me to a question for Bwana; how many test shots in each of these tests?

WSP 1345 .46075
WSR 1350 .46075
CCI 400 1335 .4605
WSPM 1345 .4605+
CCI 550 1365 .46075
CCI 41 1375 .46075
WLR 1465 .461
WLP 1390 .46075+

Larry Gibson
Larry, I agree with your test because 2400 does not need a mag primer and will light easy with a standard. It also lights fast with a mag primer. So little difference will be seen.
But H110 and 296 does not light as easy and can be blown out with the boolit. Since air space is so important with these powders, any boolit movement will increase it.
Seeing a boolit and the powder being blown out into the barrel with no ignition in the .454 with SR mag primers while a Fed 150 LP primer will light every charge was an eye opener but the LP mag was more accurate.
Same in the .45 ACP revolver after I determined the LP primer was too much and found the SP primer was much more accurate. Boolit movement before ignition was the key. Stop it and accuracy improved.
Brass capacity is what dictates primer pressures. Large capacity can absorb primer pressures better. The .475, .500's and even the 45-70 will thrive on a LP mag but the .44 and the .45 Colt are too small. They do better with a standard primer with the slower ball powders. Yet a LR primer can be dangerous in all of them , all powder makers confirm it.
You can shoot faster powders with a LP mag primer and not see much because the powder needs nothing to fire. The primer might add a few FPS.
To put LR primers in a small case can not only push the boolit far but will ignite powder with a lot of air space. It is too much.
Powders should burn in a progressive manner, not go off all at once. Slow powders were made to burn that way and to increase pressure and velocity down the bore, not in the case. That is defeated with the wrong primer.
It is true that pressures can rise past the safe point without making the velocity increase. Using a chronograph to determine pressure is folly.
It is a proven fact that increasing the powder amounts can actually reduce velocities but pressures rise. The wrong primer can increase pressures without any velocity increase.
I was informed to NOT use a LR primer in the .475 Linebaugh. I refuse to argue with Bwana about it's use in the .44 mag. It should never be used and is stressing the gun just short of disaster no matter what the chrono is showing. He has no pressure testing equipment.
The word is RIFLE, large cases with a lot of powder. LR mag primers are for LARGE cases.

[Larry Gibson]

Well now, seems there is a large disagreement with assumptions made by both sides to back up their "case".

I don't have a dog in this fight and am only interested in the test procedure and results. Since I can pressure test loads in the .44 Magnum I suggest we find out the correct answers to the assumptions made.

Bwana; can you send me the test cases with the altered primer pockets?

I can easily test the pressure with H110 ignited by fed 150, CCI300, WLP and CCI350 primers in standard cases in the .44 Magnum using the 429644HP or 429244s. I already have a standard load so I can just test with each primer.

I can also test the classic H110 load of 24.5 gr with the Hornady 240 gr XTP if desired.

I can also test a Unique load (8 1/2 - 10 gr?) with CCI 300 and 350 primers using the 44-250-K cast bullet to see what difference there may be with a "fast" powder if desired.

If Bwana sends the primer pocket altered cases I can also test the load with LR primers; wlr, CCI 200, CCI 250, CCI 34 and Remington 9 1/2s. Obviously I don't have the non-cannister powder he used in the 1st test but H110 should also suffice(?).

What is your pleasure gentlemen?:2_high5:

Larry Gibson

[cbrick]

The cases were W-W with the deepened pockets. Bullet was the Hornady 240 XTP seated to canalure. The charge was 24gr of a powder you can't buy. OAL 1.61" They were fired on 12-26-01. Air temp 45 degrees.

I was digging around in the back of one my shelves full of stuff when I found 100 cases that had been modified and were primed. So yesterday I loaded fifteen of those up with 24gr of H-110 and my 263gr Hybrids, 1.67" oal. I also loaded up another fifteen with WLP with the same load.

Before making a poor attempt at insulting me read your own posts first. What I said in my previous posts is exactly what you wrote.

I never made any attempt to insult you, your intelligence or your ability to read. I simply pointed out to those with much less reloading experience the possibility of tests such as yours being dangerous. They certainly can be, that's a fact! Beginners should be well aware of this and that's a fact also.

Rick

[Bwana]

Well, Larry, I can send you some modified cases if you wish. I'll pm you.

As far as 44man and cbrick are concerned, by their posts, they have lost any if not all credibility they may have had. When you post lies and libel someone and then compound your error by not only failing to rectify your mistakes; but, continue in the same vein you get what you have earned: disdain. That's what I have for you.

[Larry Gibson]

Bwana is sending the primer pocket modified cases so I'm awaitung on 44man and cbrik to identify some test paremeters?

BTW; I researched my records on the .44 Magnum and it seems I have 2 test of the same load of H110 with the 240 XTP. The loads were from the same lot of powder (I have a jug of it and haven't bought any H110 in many moons), same brass and same 500 pack of bullets. The difference was the primers only. I used WLPs (considered a "magnum" primer by many as it's made to ignite ball powders) in the test on 10/29/2008 and Federal 150s in the test on 8/30/2011. Test gun was my TC Contender with 8.4" barrel.

The muzzle velocity with the WLP primers was 1540 fps with an average peak psi of 31,200.

The muzzle velocity of the Fed 150 primers was 1550 fps with an average peak psi of 29,500.

Those are both close enough to fall within the ES of several test strings of the exact same load. To be more meaningful the tests should be conducted back to back, on the same day, under the same conditions, so I'll not draw any conclusions at this point. More extensive testing is obviously in order.

Larry Gibson

[cbrick]

As far as 44man and cbrick are concerned, by their posts, they have lost any if not all credibility they may have had. When you post lies and libel someone and then compound your error by not only failing to rectify your mistakes; but, continue in the same vein you get what you have earned: disdain. That's what I have for you.

What are you talking about?

Please use the "quote" button and place here the lies and libel I've commited.

Rick

[44man]

What are you talking about?

Please use the "quote" button and place here the lies and libel I've commited.

Rick
Me too! :veryconfu
I can show what I mean because I shot yesterday with magnum primers and standard. Same boolit, same load because working the load with the mag primer and less powder was worse. These were shot at 50 yards with a 4 minute Ultra Dot. I had a sandbag glitch on one shot or I would have had anther sub 1/2" group. I can show hundreds of tests like this even at below zero temperatures. This load is 1316 fps. 296 powder.

[44man]

Cbrick, I know how you shoot and you certainly know what I do with a revolver. Neither of us has ever posted misinformation.
Disdain for us? [smilie=1: well, I am not going to get excited about it. I refuse to stoop to name calling. Every one here knows us. That is good enough for me.
Dare I say that Bwana needs to show just what he does with the wrong components? I would like to see what he does at 50 yards and how he explains his results. Is it "go bang" or how to make the .44 do what it is supposed to do? Yes, a SBH Hunter can do under 1/2" at 50 yards.
Larry is a good man to offer a test but I hope he also tests accuracy at the same time. That would be a good indicator of funny pressure jumps and boolit movements.

[cbrick]

I’m not against someone with the experience and knowledge doing such experiments. My concern here, as I’ve said in previous posts, is far less experienced reloaders getting the idea that primers can be randomly switched without consequences. Those without the knowledge and experience need to read both sides of the issue especially of possible risks and there can certainly be risks doing this.

I can envision a new reloader loading up his ultra magnum kaboomer, running out of the correct primer and reasoning that he read on CastBoolits.com that primer switching is just fine, no problem so I’ll just use these. Accuracy is a separate topic related to primer switching but there can be a serious safety issue and it should be, needs to be pointed out for those less experienced folks reading this thread.

Rick

[44man]

I’m not against someone with the experience and knowledge doing such experiments. My concern here, as I’ve said in previous posts, is far less experienced reloaders getting the idea that primers can be randomly switched without consequences. Those without the knowledge and experience need to read both sides of the issue especially of possible risks and there can certainly be risks doing this.

I can envision a new reloader loading up his ultra magnum kaboomer, running out of the correct primer and reasoning that he read on CastBoolits.com that primer switching is just fine, no problem so I’ll just use these. Accuracy is a separate topic related to primer switching but there can be a serious safety issue and it should be, needs to be pointed out for those less experienced folks reading this thread.

Rick
Exactly and safety is my byword as it is yours. This is nothing to fool with.
Even though a strong gun can save a fool, the groups also tell a tale that something is wrong. We just have too many that look for the ultra fast loads, even going way over max. I have seen loads posted that scare me silly.
That little cup at the end can spray steel! [smilie=p:
It has been a great fear of mine for the new shooter looking for velocity first. The word "magnum" is what they look at first. Then manuals that say a mag primer is used even with Unique and 2400. A short step to destruction if a LR primer is used. I am surprised Bwana has not gone to the LR mag primers! But then he might not be here to post! :bigsmyl2:
I have to lie to him again---that stuff is dangerous, keep it away from new shooters. :veryconfu The chance of blowing a boolit and the powder way into the bore and then have it light off can mean DEATH! Maybe to the poor guy shooting next to you.
Larry, be careful, you could have an S.E.E. event.

[HollowPoint]

It's frustrating when an interesting experiment like this gets reduced to a bickering back and forth session.

In my initial read of the OP's writing I got no sense of anything other than the testing he had done. That could be because I'm not as smart as some.

Concern for the safety of the "Newbies" is a noble cause but the way that concern is put forth seems to lump all "Newbies" into a category of being to stupid to know any better.

Just about every area of firearms related endeavors has it's potential dangers. This is no different. Use caution. That's all that needed to be said. Can we stop the bickering?

It will be interesting to see what Larry comes up with if he pressure tests some of these rounds.

HollowPoint

[44man]

It's frustrating when an interesting experiment like this gets reduced to a bickering back and forth session.

In my initial read of the OP's writing I got no sense of anything other than the testing he had done. That could be because I'm not as smart as some.

Concern for the safety of the "Newbies" is a noble cause but the way that concern is put forth seems to lump all "Newbies" into a category of being to stupid to know any better.

Just about every area of firearms related endeavors has it's potential dangers. This is no different. Use caution. That's all that needed to be said. Can we stop the bickering?

It will be interesting to see what Larry comes up with if he pressure tests some of these rounds.

HollowPoint
You are missing the whole point. This is 100% safety first. Once you understand that foolish things can be done for a long time until a failure can occur, then you can understand. You can get away with only so much and maybe it takes a long time until failure which is a tribute to gun strength.
To bicker about safety only once is enough and it should end quick. However some don't quit and need more response. If you think I am having fun and am happy to do this, you are mistaken. This is serious.
An example for you. Swedish Mauser with a LOOOONG throat for heavy bullets. Listed load of 46 gr of 4831 and a 429 gr bullet. Shot for years with 1/2 groups at 100. Then both me and a friend had an S.E.E. event with the bolt locked, primer missing and case blown wide open. WHY? The bullet jumped into the rifling before full ignition and acted as a bore obstruction.
More powder cured it as did a powder switch to Varget.
Now you fool with a primer that can blow everything out into the bore before ignition. The cylinder gap and it's pressure release can save a fool only so long.
A newbie can be stupid and believe stuff posted. How would you tell him he is safe with a rifle primer in a .44 revolver?

[cbrick]

It's frustrating when an interesting experiment like this gets reduced to a bickering back and forth session.

Interesting, pointing out a potentially dangerous situation is bickering.


In my initial read of the OP's writing I got no sense of anything other than the testing he had done. That could be because I'm not as smart as some.

In post #1 he stated that he took what is essentially a top end load, reamed out the primer pocket and switched from a standard pistol primer and used a large rifle primer. You don't see any possibility of a dangerous situation there?


Concern for the safety of the "Newbies" is a noble cause but the way that concern is put forth seems to lump all "Newbies" into a category of being to stupid to know any better.

Take it as stupid if you wish but I look at it as too inexperienced to know better. Inexperienced does not translate into stupid, it means there is no previous knowledge of a subject to draw on and thus no way to know of possible consequences.


Just about every area of firearms related endeavors has it's potential dangers. This is no different. Use caution. That's all that needed to be said. Can we stop the bickering?

Yes, caution should be used but this is potentially very, very different for those that have little to no knowledge of potential dangers and needs to be pointed out.


It will be interesting to see what Larry comes up with if he pressure tests some of these rounds.

HollowPoint

Yes it will, no doubt but I believe Larry has the experience to not start out with top end loads, to go slow and draw on his many years of experience. Not everyone that reads this forum has the experience to do so. By reading threads such as this is one way to gain some experience, that is not bickering, it is exposing possible pitfalls that can be very useful info for those just getting started.

Rick

[Larry Gibson]

Bwana, 44man, cbrik

I appreciate the concerns for safety. The concern for safety seems to be the bone of contention as 44man states emphatically; “This is 100% safety first.” Bwana thinks he conducted a safe test, 44man and cbrik disagree and think it unsafe and thus shouldn’t be published here because some “newbie” might perceive a LR primer is “safe” in a 44 Magnum. I think we all must concede that “newbies” are not going to have the tools to deepen primer pockets. Also I think we must concede that if 44 Magnum cases are altered to take LR primers and the load is “worked up” using standard reloading practices that it probably is as safe as any other “worked up” load.

So the questions is; With a maximum safe load in the 44 magnum will the use of a LR primer boost the psi to an unsafe level?

In Bwan’a tests he used the same bullet and the same charge of powder with different primers for each test (the old one and the recent one). I can easily test different primers in the 44 Magnum using the same criteria. I can measure the psi and the velocity of each shot. I can also measure accuracy by 10 shot groups since that is the usual # of shots in my test strings.

Shall we use jacketed bullets or cast bullets?

Shall we use Unique, Blue Dot, 2400 or H110 powder?

What charge of the specified powder?

Primers; WLP, Fed 150, CCI 300, CCI 350, WLR, Rem 91/2, CCI 200, CCI 250, CCI 34, Fed 210, Fed 215M?

What range for accuracy; 25, 50 or 100 yards?

We see that is 12 test strings or 120 recorded rounds and additional foulers are needed. We can quickly see this could easily turn into an extensive test if we let it. I suggest;

One bullet; Hornady 240 gr XTP
One powder with the same charge; 2400 at 19.5 gr or H110 at 23 gr
Standard LP primers; Fed 150, CCI 300, WLP
Magnum LP primers; CCI 350
Standard LR primers; CCI 200, WLR, Fed 210
Magnum LR primers; CCI 350, Fed 215M
Test range?

Those parameters will give us a good base line with the standard and magnum LP primers. I will also give a sufficient sampling of standard and magnum LR primers to answer the question. Now let me say this; the data from this test will apply to the test cartridge, the specific components and the test firearm. However one could expect similar results in any other standard chambered 44 Magnum. It may also apply if another similar powder is substituted. The results may not apply if the components are radically changed, the use of Unique powder for example. Data is constantly misconstrued by “newbies” and even the most experienced “experts” and I’ve no doubt the results of this test, regardless of what they are, will be misconscrewed (spelling intentional) by some down the road.


So, is the game afoot?

Larry Gibson

[cbrick]

44man and cbrik disagree and think it unsafe and thus shouldn’t be published here because some “newbie” might perceive a LR primer is “safe” in a 44 Magnum. I think we all must concede that “newbies” are not going to have the tools to deepen primer pockets. Also I think we must concede that if 44 Magnum cases are altered to take LR primers and the load is “worked up” using standard reloading practices that it probably is as safe as any other “worked up” load. Larry Gibson

I didn't say it shouldn't be here. Done properly this could be an interesting and informative test series but I do firmly believe that a cautionary and advisory point of view is very much needed. This is a safety issue. It is entirely possible to have very undesirable consequences.

I would agree that "most" new to reloading wouldn't have the "proper" tool to cut the primer pocket but I also wouldn't take that as an across the board statement.

I saw nothing in the OP about "working up" loads which of course would be a wise decision.

Rick

[44man]

Yes, Larry, the game is afoot so to say.
But you can't work loads because that removes all contentions. You must use his loads.
Will pressures be out of range? Maybe, maybe not but that is not the problem as I see it.
I imagine somewhere down the road, a boolit and the powder is blown 2" or more into the bore and then the powder lights. One piece of brass with less case tension can allow that.
It might take more time and shots then you can do but there it is, still out there. Will it be 2 shots or 500? The danger lurks and waits. It has no schedule, even years means nothing to danger.

[cbrick]

There is also the problem of spiking the pressure/time curve from a proper burn to right now. Change any of the condidtions that effect a powders burn rate and all bets are off. Switching from a standard large pistol primer to a standard large rifle primer will most assuredly change the burn rate and the pressure/time curve.

As I am sure Larry is well aware, using the same powder, use H-110 as an example, and change case volume, bullet weight or the many other things can and will alter the burn rate and if it's already high end load, well . . .

For this reason I don't agree with 44man's recommendation to start high and test (the original tests). Also you have no way of knowing things such as crimp or the condition of the brass that was used in the original test that could help retard but not prevent bullet movement from primer pressure alone.

If you do these tests do as I'm sure you do with any load development, start low and work up. No sense risking such things as a nice firearm, hands, eyeballs, bystanders.

Stay safe!

Rick

[44man]

There is also the problem of spiking the pressure/time curve from a proper burn to right now. Change any of the condidtions that effect a powders burn rate and all bets are off. Switching from a standard large pistol primer to a standard large rifle primer will most assuredly change the burn rate and the pressure/time curve.

As I am sure Larry is well aware, using the same powder, use H-110 as an example, and change case volume, bullet weight or the many other things can and will alter the burn rate and if it's already high end load, well . . .

For this reason I don't agree with 44man's recommendation to start high and test (the original tests). Also you have no way of knowing things such as crimp or the condition of the brass that was used in the original test that could help retard but not prevent bullet movement from primer pressure alone.

If you do these tests do as I'm sure you do with any load development, start low and work up. No sense risking such things as a nice firearm, hands, eyeballs, bystanders.

Stay safe!

Rick
OK, you are correct, sorry. Larry is not dumb so we must leave it to him. I would not do it either.
However, is Larry going to use a pistol or revolver? That alone can skew results big time. A boolit against the rifling adds resistance to movement. I think this should be done with a revolver.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry is not dumb :smile:.....Thanks, I do like that.......

The two loads I listed with 2400 and H110 are not maximum loads. The 2400 load is a commonly used one and the H110 is a "starting" load. I am really not adverse to using the standard max load for the 240 XTP of 24.5 gr H110. That load consistantly produces 29 - 31,000 psi+/-. The SAAMI MAP for the .44 Magnum is 36,000 psi (Piezo) and the MPSM is 38,200 psi. That gives a decent fudge factor.

The test gun will be a Contender 44 with a 8.4" barrel. It is not practical to use a revolver. The closed breach system is what all factory ressure test barrels are as well. I do not believe it will "skew results at all. The Contender will actually will show a higher/faster time pressure curve because there is no long cylinder throat or barrel/cylinder gap. As long as we compare the LP primer loads against the LR primer loads out of the same barrel the results will be objective. Additionally, if the loads do prove safe, I can chronograph the same loads out of a Ruger FTBH with 6 1/2" barrel. Granted the average velocity will be lower but as long as the velocity SD and ES are consistent with the Contenders SD and ES then nothing is "skewed". The Contender also is rated at psi's higher than 42,000 psi....another good fudge factor.

44man, the data and time/pressure trace will give sufficient warning if an SEE is likely. However, if the 24.5 gr of H110 load is used I seriously doubt the probability at all. Tests in the Contender barrel, as previously reported, demonstrate that even the mild Fed 150 ignites that load in the Contender with very good consitency.

Accuracy test range?

Larry Gibson

[runfiverun]

i'd like to see something a tad bit different.
a way to measure how the fired primer exerts pressure within the case.
perhaps just a seated boolit and a primer no powder.
i don't know if the monitor would pick that up.
and if groups are shot i'd like one master target behind the others just to see what all of the groups look like on one target...

[cbrick]

Range to group at? That can be dependant on what the shooter is most comfortable with to acheive the best groups. At any rate I would suggest either 50 or 100, whichever you feel you can do the best at. The shorter the range the more difficult it becomes for differences to be obvious.

Rick

[mpmarty]

In a related matter of personal experience, I was "playing" around with my 1895 in 45/70 and decided to test fire some of the 350gr RD boolits with primers and no powder. Results were surprising. LP primer in new WW case drove the boolit into the barrel nine inches from the bolt face. LR primer drove same boolit to eleven inches from bolt face. LP were Wolf LR were Winchester. My 3/8" brass rod is a bit over two feet long and worked quite well in removing the slugs. Original intent was a poor mans way of slugging a barrel.

[The Dove]

test 2 see if i can still post after being punished

[Sonnypie]

Sheesh!
This is why there is this: :takinWiz:

[smilie=1::lol:

[warf73]

This post is why I don't post any of my tests. I have great respect for the people posting with there concerns of saftey but......

Reloading is/can be dangerous if you walk off of the beaten path (beaten path is refering to fallowing the reloading book to the letter), so everyone doing so please use caution.

[Larry Gibson]

i'd like to see something a tad bit different.
a way to measure how the fired primer exerts pressure within the case.
perhaps just a seated boolit and a primer no powder.
i don't know if the monitor would pick that up.
and if groups are shot i'd like one master target behind the others just to see what all of the groups look like on one target...

No, the strain gauge system won't measure the mild pressures from primers alone. The lowest psi I've measured has been 9,200. Reason being it takes 5 - 7,000 psi for a case to obturate to begin applying pressure on the chamber walls. Then there must be enough "strain" exerted on the steel barrel in the chamber area to measure.

I recently have put over 1800 test shots down range testing cowboy action loads and developing same with VihtaVuori's Tin Star for the Powder River cartridge Company in the .32 H&R, .38 SPL, .357 Magnum, .44 SPL, .44 Magnum, 44-40 WCF, .45 ACP, .45 Colt and the 45-70. In many of the factory loads used for reference and the development of loads a pressure reading was unobtainable because the psi was below 9,200 psi.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Range to group at? That can be dependant on what the shooter is most comfortable with to acheive the best groups. At any rate I would suggest either 50 or 100, whichever you feel you can do the best at. The shorter the range the more difficult it becomes for differences to be obvious.

Rick

I'm "comfortable" shooting at distances a lot farther that 100 yards. However, it makes testing time consuming as to changing targets; the farther the range the longer the walk to and from. I'm not sure that accuracy is a componant of the question here but it can be tested easily enough. I just don't want to get into the long and unnecessary discusion concerning esoteric things like different rifling and barrel nodes as they are really not germain to the question here (whether using LR primers in the 44 Magnum is "safe"). Since this decision concerning the test range is seemingly difficult to make and I've not heard from 44man on the issue I'll make the decision myself; 50 yards will be the test distance.

Larry Gibson

[CATS]

Larry,
I would love to see results using 2400, H110 AND Unique.
Thanks!
CATS

[Larry Gibson]

Larry,
I would love to see results using 2400, H110 AND Unique.
Thanks!
CATS

That would make it a minimum 300+ shot test with all those different primers:shock::groner:

Larry Gibson

[44man]

I'm "comfortable" shooting at distances a lot farther that 100 yards. However, it makes testing time consuming as to changing targets; the farther the range the longer the walk to and from. I'm not sure that accuracy is a componant of the question here but it can be tested easily enough. I just don't want to get into the long and unnecessary discusion concerning esoteric things like different rifling and barrel nodes as they are really not germain to the question here (whether using LR primers in the 44 Magnum is "safe"). Since this decision concerning the test range is seemingly difficult to make and I've not heard from 44man on the issue I'll make the decision myself; 50 yards will be the test distance.

Larry Gibson
50 yards is fine Larry. 25 will say nothing of value.
It will be a hard test because the LR primer might be under safe pressures for the gun. It is the "what if" stuff if the boolit and powder is forced out well into the barrel and then lights off.
After seeing a SR primer blow all the powder and boolit 3" into the bore of a .454 a few times without ignition, only angels kept it from lighting off. All pressure would have been backwards. It was not my gun either.

[Bwana]

While we wait on Larry to do his stuff I decided to do it again and see what I got this time.
I used the same gun, W-W brass, and my 265gr Hybrid bullets that have a length of .770" and were seated .350" into the case. I used a heavy roll crimp. The powder used was H-110.
The first set of figures are the work up with the CCI 200 primer to establish a safe load to use with that primer and the others.
20gr/1190fps/.459"
21gr/1210/.459"
22gr/1220/.459+"
23gr/1280/.4595"
24gr/1310/.4595" All rounds were fired inthe same chamber (2 each) and easy extraction.
These next loads list the primers and the data using 24gr of H-110 and the 265 Hybrid.
CCI 500/1260/.459"
CCI 550/1300/.45925"
WSP-- this load only chronographed one of the four rds, I think due to muzzle flash.
WSPM/1300/.45925"
WLP/1250/.459"
CCI 200/1320/.4595"
The initial loads were ran in the morning and the second set that afternoon. All had easy extraction. I kept the load used (24gr H-110) below what I consider top in this gun and will now work up to a pressure ring measurement of .461" which is max usable in this gun.

[cbrick]

The first set of figures are the work up with the CCI 200 primer to establish a safe load to use with that primer and the others.
20gr/1190fps/.459" (5 tests with CCI 200 LARGE rifle primer)
21gr/1210/.459"
22gr/1220/.459+"
23gr/1280/.4595"
24gr/1310/.4595" All rounds were fired inthe same chamber (2 each) and easy extraction.

These next loads list the primers and the data using 24gr of H-110 and the 265 Hybrid.

CCI 500/1260/.459" (CCI 500 - SMALL pistol primer)
CCI 550/1300/.45925" (CCI 500 - SMALL pistol Magnum primer)
WSP-- this load only chronographed one of the four rds, I think due to muzzle flash. (Winchester standard SMALL pistol primer)
WSPM/1300/.45925" (Winchester Magnum SMALL pistol primer)
WLP/1250/.459" (Winchester standard LARGE pistol primer)
CCI 200/1320/.4595" (CCI standard LARGE rifle primer)

Colored italic text is mine.

I can understand reaming the depth of the primer pocket from pistol primer pocket depth (.118" to .122") to rifle primer pocket depth (.128" to .132") but how does one keep those SMALL primers in the LARGE primer pockets?

What am I missing here?

Rick

[Bwana]

As stated in my original post: "This allowed me to use large rifle and small pistol/rifle in those cases and still use large pistol primers in unaltered cases. The small primers were used by taking fired large pistol cup and removing the firing pin indentation then dropping the small primer of your choice inside it and seating."

[The Dove]

What's the status on this test Larry?

The Dove

[Sonnypie]

I have found that with primers I get much better results than without primers.
Maybe that's because the powder tends to fall out the flash hole? :veryconfu

[The Dove]

Moderators;

Am I still in the penalty box or am I back in good standing?

The Dove

[Larry Gibson]

What's the status on this test Larry?

The Dove

Have the brass and other components....just need the time. Got wrapped up assessing 700+ firearms from an estate.....lots of interesting guns but a lot of work and it takes time......

Larry Gibson

[44man]

No hurry Larry. It will be interesting because I also want to see what happens.
I understand time! I have to go pick up steel roofing, clean the gutters before the rain, drain the water hoses and maybe find time to pick up the 500 billion leaves.
I crawled on the barn roof and taped the holes with duct tape, how is that for efficient? :mrgreen:

[The Dove]

Have the brass and other components....just need the time. Got wrapped up assessing 700+ firearms from an estate.....lots of interesting guns but a lot of work and it takes time......

Larry Gibson

Thanks - just curious amigo.

The Dove

[Larry Gibson]

I have test loads loaded....waiting for weather........

Test loads are with the RCBS 44-250-K cast of WW+2% tin, sized at .430 and lubed with Javelina. Cases are all WW. The ones with LR primers have the pockets modified by Bwana. Two powders are tested; 23 gr with H110 and 21 gr with Alliant 2400. Test loads using LR primers are with Remington 9 1/2s, CCI 200s, CCI #34s, WLRs and Federal 215s.

The control loads are the same but loaded in WW cases with standard primer pockets. WLP primers are used with the H110 load and Federal 150s with the 2400 load.

Waiting for weather.........

Larry Gibson

[The Dove]

Update Larry?????

Talk to me amigo.

The Dove

[Larry Gibson]

Still waitung for a weather break, nothing but cold, wind and rain...........was noce today at 45 degrees but had family over and honey do's on this Sunday.

Larry Gibson

[white eagle]

just from my limited experience ,granted not vast,I am going to be contrary
I have followed the advice of some and used lp(fed 150) in the 44 mag and then I loaded some of the same boolit,charge,cases with cci 350 lpm
I did only for the sake of accuracy, I care not for the velocity game,I got better accuracy with the cci 350 lpm
maybe blind luck but repeated time and time again so for me with the particular load it is large pistol magnums im the 44 mag

[mpmarty]

Without a puppy in this battle, I use LP primers in most of my mid range 45/70 loads as I find better accuracy with them as opposed to Winchester LR primers. the LP primers do a very poor (terrible) job of lighting BLC-2 so those get the Winchester LR primers.