hard LP primers

[edsmith]

who makes the hardest large pistol primers? thanks guys.

[oldandslow]

ES, 5/17/12

I've tried a number of pistol primers including Winchester, Federal, Remington, CCI and Wolf (during the primer shortage years after Obama's election). CCI and Wolf seemed the hardest compared to the others, at least for me.

best wishes- oldandslow

[John Boy]

22 Oct 2010
Test Procedure: Using a Lee Hardness Tester that measures Brinell hardness, placed a new primer on a piece of steel. Held the indent ball on the primer for 30 seconds. Measurement is the diameter of the indent, smaller numbers indication harder brass

Pistol Primers
0.32 – CCI 300 LP
0.38 – Federal GM150 Match LP
0.40 – Federal 155 LP Magnum
0.40 – Winchester WLP
0.42 – Federal 150 LP
0.42 - Federal 100 SP
0.44 – CCI 400 SP
0.48 – Remington 2 ½ LP

Rifle Primers
0.26 – CCI BR-2 LR
0.28 – CCI 200 LR
0.32 – Federal 215 LR Magnum
0.34 – Remington 9 ½ LR

Note: Rifle primers are harder than handgun primers!
Lot Numbers were not recorded

[9.3X62AL]

John Boy--

THAT is some of the best info I've seen to date on this subject.

I see a "sticky" in its future, for sure.

[MtGun44]

I had always 'felt' that CCI 300s were the hardest to seat, but I have never seen
actual hardness data before. Great info.

I, too, think this should not be lost - please sticky this one.

Bill

[John Boy]

Gentlemen, I did this test after seeing repetitive posts from CAS shooters ... asking 'What is the 'lightest' primer. Their primary reason for their question is/was ... they 'lightened' the main spring too much on their handguns and rifles. As a result had issues of primers failing to ignite. Quite honestly, I got tired seeing this question especially when I asked what was the before and after actual foot pounds of hammer/firing pin pressure on the firearms ... with the constant reply of :veryconfu

So, I went to my inventory of primers and tested each brand & type that I had to resolve which primer was the 'lightest' cup hardness. It is a prevalent misnomer in the shooting community that Federal LP & LR are the softest ... with tested Remington's being the softest instead

Being primarily a BPCR shooter, my primary concern is not primer cup hardness but the brisance of various primer's chemical compositions that will produce the best deflagration of the black powder column charge - not brisance detonation normally needed to ignite different types of ball and flake nitro based powders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflagration

A primer with low brisance
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f1TTfqxVUw4/SiSYXpELBiI/AAAAAAAAAG4/R2anhEgZzoE/s400/PMC_Russian_Large_Rifle_9-04_cropped.jpg

A primer with high brisance
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f1TTfqxVUw4/SiSYd1GJD6I/AAAAAAAAAHA/JVuBXHXlXqs/s400/Remington_9_5_348_Cropped.jpg

[Mal Paso]

Wolf/Tula and Magtech are the hardest I've found.

[felix]

JohnBoy, I suggest you contact Grafs and PowderValley and offer them the service to photograph and measure EACH lot irregardless of brand. For publication, of course, and for a fee. Not to mention letting the competitive manufacturers see what is needed most by the reloading public other than price. ... felix

[Char-Gar]

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

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

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

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

[John Boy]

Char-Gar, you may interested in this ... Germán A. Salazar has done extensive brisance testing of primers and I failed to reference his latest article - Primers - Large Rifle Primer Study ... http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/primers-large-rifle-primer-study.html for the primer pictures I posted.

Here is a vintage 1975 Remington 9.5 primer's afterburner! Don't know the vintage of the ones you bought, this one is 37 yrs old. Note the long flares of the ignition. Appears even back then primer manufacturers used either glass or aluminum to detonate smokeless powder
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f1TTfqxVUw4/SiSYiwpgyhI/AAAAAAAAAHI/HlzAOezBTwo/s400/Remington_9_5_1975_2229_cropped.jpg

[Char-Gar]

Thanks for the link. I will take read it with great interest. I have been using Remington 9.5s for at least thirty years. The stash I bought was 8 years ago and the primers were much older than that. I don't know how long he had them on his shelf, but I would estimate 20 years or longer.

I have been interested in the brisance issue for a long time now, and have found very few folks who understood it or it's importance in cast bullet shooting. Seems like folks like to talk about primers being "hotter" and brisance really has little or nothing to do with the tempreture of the fire, just the speed at which it is released.

[Char-Gar]

John Boy..That was a very interesting link and article. I noted the subject was to determine whether or not a soft primer would deliver better accuracy in match 30-06 ammo. The testing seem to indicate that it did.

They were using the primers to light off a dose of H4350. They are not cast bullet folks, but the data is none-the-less interesting and helpful.

The question for us, is what effect does the softness/harness of the primer and brisance relate to cast bullet shooting? I have connected a few dots and have a theory or two on the subject, but I am not much shakes as a tech person, and would not dare to whisper them on this board. It would take but one or two knowledgable questions and I would have to fold my theoritical tent and creep off.

[mdi]

22 Oct 2010
Test Procedure: Using a Lee Hardness Tester that measures Brinell hardness, placed a new primer on a piece of steel. Held the indent ball on the primer for 30 seconds. Measurement is the diameter of the indent, smaller numbers indication harder brass

Pistol Primers
0.32 – CCI 300 LP
0.38 – Federal GM150 Match LP
0.40 – Federal 155 LP Magnum
0.40 – Winchester WLP
0.42 – Federal 150 LP
0.42 - Federal 100 SP
0.44 – CCI 400 SP
0.48 – Remington 2 ½ LP

Rifle Primers
0.26 – CCI BR-2 LR
0.28 – CCI 200 LR
0.32 – Federal 215 LR Magnum
0.34 – Remington 9 ½ LR

Note: Rifle primers are harder than handgun primers!
Lot Numbers were not recorded

Excellent report. But I had a thought (uh oh!). How does the hardness of the brass relate to the amount of force needed to ignite/fire the primer. I would think a harder brass cup might need more force to ignite the compound, but, I think this may also be an aspect of primer preformance, ie; striking force needed to ignite primer (mebbe primer XX had a hard brass cup but needs less striking force applied to ignite compound than primer YY). If all primers had the same compound, the same anvil, the same anvil stats. (hardness, distance /tolerence to compound, etc.) then cup hardness would play a major part in primer preformance.

Mebbe a test of the amount of force, in foot pounds of energy, needed to ignite a primer using an average diameter/shape firing pin ???

Hey, jes an old guy's thinkin'...[smilie=1:

[John Boy]

mdi, here is the key to primer ignition and I'm sure each manufacturer has tested extensively the brass alloy( 70% copper - 30% zinc) needed to ignite the priming mixture ...


The anvil of the Boxer primer is slightly raised so that when the primer is properly seated the priming mixture will be pre-stressed for maximum sensitivity and the primer will be slightly (.002" to .003") below flush with the case head.
Donna Cline's - AeroBallistics Online (an excellent defunct website)

As we see, not all primers have the same brass alloy tensile strength - the exact priming mixture is specifically unknown to the shooting public - the gr weight of the mixture would have to be analyzed and the anvil distance to the priming mixture would have to be measured. I venture a guess, the seating depth of the anvil used by the machinery is constant for each manufacturer.

OK, next considerations: priming mix amount needed for extruded - flake and ball powders based on the RQ (Relative Quickness) for a specific powder by caliber pocket size needed ... small or large ... ie. regular or magnum primer


Mebbe a test of the amount of force, in foot pounds of energy, needed to ignite a primer using an average diameter/shape firing pin ??? Me? Nope! I'm a Kitchen Table ballistics and gunsmith. Plus, being a 98% BPCR shooter with long arms having the proper sear release poundage or single or double set triggers that will cook off every time the hardest alloy primers on the market ... am not interested doing extensive testing to try to determine what the manufacturers have already spent big bucks doing.

And I and other BPCR shooters have tested which primers predominately provide better accuracy and brisance control: The CCI BR-2 and the Federal GM150M

The 2% smokeless powder shooter of me - for the specific caliber - powder used ... I use the primer identified in the loading data published by the vendors. When in doubt for the primer, like using the new Alliant MP-300 for a powder charge in a 32-40, my source is the burn rate of H-110 (almost the same a MP-300) needing a magnum. And Lyman's 4th Handbook is an other excellent source

[German Salazar]

There's almost nothing more fascinating in reloading and shooting for accuracy than primers. John, thanks for the link to my articles. For those who go to the website, there is an index page that will guide you to a few more primer articles.

Here's a link to the index: http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/p/articles-index.html
The main page: www.riflemansjournal.com

[John Boy]

German - Thanks for stopping by the thread. Readers should be honored.
I have the Index as a Favorite and have read many of the articles and more to go.

Talking about primers, us BPCR folks sure would like a primer of the era shooting straight breech BP reloads and pre smokeless. Range time development could be shortened appreciably

Would you care to add some of your words of wisdom respective to brisance and primers to the thread?

[German Salazar]

John, I've never shot black powder, but have a few random thoughts that might be useful.
Primers in the black powder age and in the early smokeless era were mercuric and corrosive. The mercury content could quickly render brass cases unreloadable and the salt content, of course, made them corrosive to barrel steel. They were generally acknowledged to be milder than the early non-corrosive primers that replaced them. Reloading manuals from the 1930's, such as Phillip Sharpe's book and various powder makers' reloading tables warn to cut loads substantially when using non-corrosive primers.

The non-corrosive primers were also regarded as less accurate (a lot less) by competitive shooters and by Frankford Arsenal. FA kept loading corrosive primers in match ammo until around 1957.

What I saw in all of my primer photography and pressure testing was that generally speaking, a big flame was directly related to higher pressure and more variability in pressure (and thus reduced accuracy). This wasn't a 100% correlation, but it was very strong. Even with a case as large as the .30-06 and with over 50 gr. of slow burning smokeless powder, a milder (small flame, low pressure) primer still produced better accuracy.

What little I know of black powder is that it is extremely fast burning. Although the typical cartridge used in BPCR is certainly larger than a .30-06, given the fast burn rate, I think that the mild primer is probably still the best choice.

We did some testing with lead-free primers, which are extremely mild. Ultimately, they weren't imported commercially so I didn't publish anything, but I provided samples and some test data to Michael Courtney who did some work with then for DoD. You can read some of that here: http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV11N2.pdf

I have some other work by him, but no way ti upload it to the forum, it deals with measuring variability in primer blast waves. Let me know if you have a way to upload it for the others and we can coordinate a bit.

[John Boy]

What little I know of black powder is that it is extremely fast burning.

German, here's a good study article detailing How Fast Black Powder Burns ...

http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/bp_burning/bp_burning.html

Per the tests , here's some determined speed variables cited

When the powder charge is ignited, all the granules don't all immediately ignite, especially in a flintlock. The ignition has to propagate through the charge by leaping from one grain to another. A 1952 study by Blackwood and Bowden showed that adjacent grains were ignited by a hot spray of liquid potassium salts ejected from burning grains, and this propagation speed varied from about 190 m/sec (623 fps) to as much as 400 m/sec (1312 fps) in a fully-confined powder explosion. Another recent Russian paper confirms this in a separate set of experiments on black powder explosions in open tubes. It is likely the lower figure of 190 m/sec is the speed reached in a firearm, which means a 1" long powder charge could completely ignite in as little as 0.13 milliseconds.

[M-Tecs]

Lots of good information on primers in this post but it also raises some questions for me.

John Boy’s information very effectively answers the OP’s question as to what the hardest LP primer is.

The first question is why should I care how hard or soft the primer cup is? Yes, I understand that the primer needs to be tough enough to not flatten, blank or pierce, but within these parameters why should I care about cup hardness?

Since I do have a S&W PPC revolver and a S&W 25 revolver with light springs and M1A’s and M1’s that are prone to slam fires I do care about primer sensitivity, however, sensitivity is not directly related to cup hardness or thickness. For sensitivity cup hardness is one part of the equation as is anvil design and as is the priming compounds chemical compositions.

I have repeatedly read and I believe that Federal primers are more sensitive that other primers. My testing for this belief is my two S&W revolvers with light springs. I get FTF’s with CCI, Winchester, Remington and Wolf primers in both guns. I get no FTF with Federals in either gun.

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

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

[Mal Paso]

I have heard that Federal uses a more sensitive compound. They certainly have more packaging than any other primer.

I have also heard that the only difference between Federal Standard and Magnum primers was cup thickness. I found no difference in boolit velocity over a number of different loadings.

Efforts to confirm any of this....................

[Lloyd Smale]

the reason myself and many other shooters dont like rem primers is years ago there quality control was the pits! Just about every batch of them were differnt sized. Some would about fall out of a primer pocket and some could barely be seated. Ive used some lately and they seemed to have gotten better but i still have that stuck in my craw. Kind of like once you have a problem with a gun or scope or anything else you kind of loose confidence in it and even after its fixed it is hard to like it again.
John Boy...Very good information as "brisance" is where it is at for us smokeless powder cast bullet rifle shooters. As you know "brisance" is the speed at which it released 100% of it's energy. The quicker the more "shattering effect" is has on what it hits.

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

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

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

[Char-Gar]

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

[John Boy]

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

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

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

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

re: Sure would like to read and save what the force is needed by primer type to ignite each. There are many shooters that hour glass or put after market springs in their firearms and then moan and groan they have failures to ignite or multiple miss fires. Here is a read in the Rifleman's Journal how the needed force is determined but does not detail what those forces are for different vendor's primers ...
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/08/primers-it-dont-go-bang.html

[9.3X62AL]

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

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

[mdi]

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

[mdi]

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

[John Boy]

Personally, with my so-so shooting ability I could prolly use match heads for priming and notice no difference in accuracy/performancemdi, had a good chuckle but match heads have been tried to reduce BPCR brisance. Only a couple of experimenters though and they found they were loosing sleep scraping - cutting - packing - putting the anvils back in!

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

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

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

[DWM]

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

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

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

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

DWM

[bslim]

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