large rifle primers or pistol primers

[Silvyus]

I have some large rifle primers and wanted to know if anyone can tell me the differance between them and large pistol primers. I am looking to load for my 44 mag. contender and if I can use the primers I have it would be nice.

[Ricochet]

Large rifle primers are slightly taller than large pistol primers, and may not seat flush in pistol cases.

[Blammer]

I'd try one and see, I have had no height problems with mine.

[wonderwolf]

I've heard they are harder.....Sitting around talking to a old school shooter during a pistol combat match he told me about the time he loaded up 1000 rounds of such and such load and used large rifle primers on accident and they would light strike the 1st time and go off the 2nd time...So he took a few rubber bands and wrapped them around the hammer to give it a little more umph...said it worked really well and the loads were still safe :drinks:

[slughammer]

I seated several Federal large rifle primers in pistol brass and they sat way too high, no way were they going to work.

I solved the problem by buying a rifle that takes large rifle primers.

[44man]

Be aware that even if they seat deep enough by crushing the anvil into the pellet, they will raise pressures dramatically. Rifle primers are .010" higher too.

[Whitespider]

Larger rifle primers are taller than large pistol. Chances are they’ll seat above flush with the case head, this is dangerous.

The cup is also made from thicker material to withstand the higher pressures generated in rifle cartridges. Most pistols and revolvers won’t strike the cup of a rifle primer with enough force to give consistent ignition, accuracy will surely suffer.

Rifle primers have a considerably higher brisance, more than is required for most handgun powder charges. This can have a dramatic effect on pressure and even change the relative burn rate of the powder.

I recommend you buy large pistol primers. I also recommend you buy a rifle for your rifle primers.

[Marlin Junky]

I have some large rifle primers and wanted to know if anyone can tell me the differance between them and large pistol primers. I am looking to load for my 44 mag. contender and if I can use the primers I have it would be nice.


This tool:

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/productview?saleitemid=445053&t=11082005

will deepen your primer pockets so you can use Large Rifle primers in your .44M brass. I don't know if you'll significantly weaken the case heads by removing enough brass to seat LR primers but it would be interesting to find out if this is worth while, in case we have another primer shortage.

MJ

[BluesBear]

Listen to Whitespider's advice.

However if you don't mind a few thousand extra PSI in your loads then go ahead and experiment.

After all it's your fingers and eyes.
Just don't expect any sympathy from me when you lose one or more of either.

[mto7464]

Primers are cheap, just use the correct ones and give the rifle primer to a friend.

[Silvyus]

I already gave the rifle primers to a friend who could use them properly thanks everyone for the advice

[AZ-Stew]

Now, go buy a reloading manual and READ the sections that teach you how to handload. You'll find all you need to know about primers, brass powder and bullets and how they relate to each other in your handloads.

Then come back and ask all the questions you want about bullet casting. We'll be happy to help. That's what this forum is for.

Regards,

Stew

[Silvyus]

correct me if I'm wrong but Stew that was more then a little rude

Regards,

Silvyus

[BluesBear]

Well it did seem perhaps a little brusque, but I wouldn't really classify it as rude.

And it is good, sound advice none-the-less.

When discussing safety it's often necessary to be a little stern.
Sometimes the written word can appear to be mean-spirited when that was not the intent.

Every reloading book worth its salt has a section on primers.
And anyone who advocates a dangerous reloading practice is foolish.
There are already enough websites out there full of misinformation and stupidity.
With all of the negative attention focused on the shooting sports nowadays we certainly don't need to appear reckless.


I've been reading forums for over five years now and I can say with certainty that this is one of the most informed, intelligent and helpful forums you will ever find.
The signal to noise ratio here is exceptionally high.

[BruceB]

Back in the '60s, Ruger's new tube-fed semi-auto .44 Magnum carbine was becoming popular in Canada.

There was NO MARKET in Canada for handgun ammunition, and thus when Canadian Industries Limited (C-I-L) decided to make .44 Mag ammunition, it was strictly intended as a carbine load.

It was a 240-grain jacketed softpoint, not a hollowpoint. Now, the point of this post is this:

C-I-L used their #8 & 1/2 RIFLE primer in this .44 ammo, exactly the same primer they used in .303, .30-06, .270 and a host of other cartridges.

I have never owned a .44 rifle or carbine , and I used this ammunition in both my Ruger single-actions AND an unmodified S&W Model 29. No problems arose of any kind, even in double-action shooting with the Smith, where the lighter hammer-fall might be expected to give ignition troubles.

I then reloaded that C-I-L brass with C-I-L, Winchester and CCI PISTOL primers, again with no problems, no seated-too-deep primers, no misfiring. I have also, on occasion when circumstances dictated, used rifle primers in other makes of .44 brass, again without any performance penalties at all, either in chronographed consistency or in functional reliability.

Say what you will, I've done this and it worked well. The original poster has solved his "problem", but there really wasn't much of a problem to begin with.

[BluesBear]

CIL/Dominion had long been loading .44-40 ammunition. Back in the 1970s I had a lot of it in both the yellow boxes with blue band and the yellow boxes with the blue oval. Some were marked "For Rifle Use Only".
I even had some CIL .44-40 Shot cartridges that used an extended case.
When reloading the cases, CCI 300 Large Pistol primers fit them perfectly. When attempting to duplicate the old Remington Hi-Speed loading I found that CCI #200 Large Rifle primers would not seat flush in CIL cases. Even the Rifle Only cases would only work with pistol primers. So it would seem that CIL were making Large Pistol primers. Why didn't they use them in their .44 Magnum?
Perhaps the powder they were using needed a hotter primer?
It doesn't really matter.

You can bet that CIL pressure tested their ammunition. So it really doesn't matter what primer CIL used. They probably weren't using any powder you could buy anyway. The bottom line is that CIL had the ability to pressure test their ammo in order to keep it safely within established .44 Magnum specifications.

So until a reputable source decides to publish loading data for the .44 magnum using rifle primers, in cases designed to accept Large Rifle primers, it's still a dangerous, foolish, reckless practice.


A while back, Handloader magazine published a test of rifle primers. Using the exact same components except for primers they experienced over a 10,000 psi difference. That can be the difference between bang and kaboom!

Now I realize they did it with a large capacity rifle case, but it could be even more hazardous in a smaller high pressure case such as the .44 Magnum. For instance, we all know that projectile seating depth (PSD) can drastically change pressures. There is just a smaller margin of error in smaller cartridges.



Now there are many people on this forum that I respect and I'd feel proud to meet.
[flame suit=on]
But I'm really glad I don't shoot on the same range with some of you.


.

[AZ-Stew]

Silvyus,

My point is that the main purpose of this forum is not to discuss absolute rock bottom basic reloading techniques. From your post it's apparent that you are not familiar with the basics, and like many new handloaders, you expect to get all your information by asking questions in internet forums. I'm guessing that you only use load data that's available for free on the 'net, also.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, and most here will tell you that I'm more than willing to help. There's also nothing wrong with "free" anything, as long as the product is genuine. In the case of handloading data, that means you should be getting your info from the powder and bullet manufacturer's web sites and follow it to the letter as a recipe, not a suggestion, until you know exactly what you're doing.

This is a forum for a specialized segment of handloading: Casting, loading and shooting bullets you make yourself by pouring molten lead alloys into iron, aluminum and brass moulds. This is generally NOT the place to learn the very basic rudiments of the handloading craft. This you should be learning from an authoritative source, either an NRA Certified Handloading Instructor, or by reading the "education" section of one (preferably several) of the commercially available handloading manuals. These are published by the bullet, powder and in the case of Lyman, handloading equipment manufacturers.

My writing style is sometimes terse and short on diplomacy, but I wanted to get your attention. We're all here to learn from and support each other's bullet casting habit. When you've studied several handloading manuals you'll begin to understand why we do some of the things we do here. I'm trying to show you the shortest path to success. Study everything you can get your hands on related to handloading, try to replicate in your handloads what you've studied, shoot them, study the results (observe EVERYTHING), compare what you see to what you studied at the beginning. Repeat. Repeat again and again. That's how the most knowledgable posters here got to where they are. Those who try to start at the middle of the learning curve, instead of at the beginning, suffer more failures (leading, poor accuracy, and dozens of other irritations) and damaged equipment. Those who started at the bottom and worked their way up still shoot the same firearms they started with 30 - 50 years ago. They're just better shots with them now.

Your choice.

Regards,

Stew

P.S. Welcome aboard.

[Marlin Junky]

Back in the '60s, Ruger's new tube-fed semi-auto .44 Magnum carbine was becoming popular in Canada.

There was NO MARKET in Canada for handgun ammunition, and thus when Canadian Industries Limited (C-I-L) decided to make .44 Mag ammunition, it was strictly intended as a carbine load.

It was a 240-grain jacketed softpoint, not a hollowpoint. Now, the point of this post is this:

C-I-L used their #8 & 1/2 RIFLE primer in this .44 ammo, exactly the same primer they used in .303, .30-06, .270 and a host of other cartridges.

I have never owned a .44 rifle or carbine , and I used this ammunition in both my Ruger single-actions AND an unmodified S&W Model 29. No problems arose of any kind, even in double-action shooting with the Smith, where the lighter hammer-fall might be expected to give ignition troubles.

I then reloaded that C-I-L brass with C-I-L, Winchester and CCI PISTOL primers, again with no problems, no seated-too-deep primers, no misfiring. I have also, on occasion when circumstances dictated, used rifle primers in other makes of .44 brass, again without any performance penalties at all, either in chronographed consistency or in functional reliability.

Say what you will, I've done this and it worked well. The original poster has solved his "problem", but there really wasn't much of a problem to begin with.

Bruce,

If one reams .44Mag primer pockets to accommodate Fed 210's do you suppose that'll remove enough brass to weaken the case webs significantly. I own over 25K Fed 210's and a bunch of virgin .44M Starline brass and was thinking about buying my wife a Marlin 1894 in .44 Magnum. Using nothing but Fed 210's would simplify my handloading. Naturally, being a cautious, responsible, experienced handloader, I would work up from reduced loads when using the Fed 210's. Also, I've never had a Fed 210 misfire in a Marlin lever action which is not true for WLR primers. When I did a little research on primer attributes, I found that Federal uses a little different compound that is easier to light than the compound used in other primers. This kinda deviates from the point but it leads me to believe that I probably would not have ignition problems in a Marlin 1894 chanbered in .44 Magnum if I were to use Fed 210's SAFELY! :-D

MJ

[44man]

When I first started loading .44's back in 1956, I didn't have good dies and did not get the case tension needed so I depended more on crimp. Of course I had to learn the hard way about tension when I started silhouette. I had special bench dies made and came up with all kinds of things. I started with LP mag primers like the books said and accuracy left a lot to be desired. The primer pressure was enough to drive the bullet from the case before the powder got started. SD's and ES's were all over the place. Even when I figured out how to keep the tension tight and even, mag primers still gave poor accuracy. I use nothing but standard LP in the .44 and .45 Colt now. If I want to triple group size all I need are some mag primers.
I can't imagine using LR primers in that small a case, you don't even need powder to drive a boolit deep into the barrel or maybe all the way through it. Where does a boolit wind up before a good burn is attained? I don't like the idea of a boolit leaving the case, stopping and getting slammed with the powder pressure. Even working loads to account for the extra pressure isn't going to keep a boolit in the brass.
Then if a primer stands a little proud and recoil slams it against the recoil plate, it can go off. No thanks, LR primers will never go in my guns!

[Silvyus]

Well all I didn't meen to start a heated debate here I gess I need to admit I was just being a little lazy I have been loading hand gun loads for years 9mm and 44 mostly and have 5 different loading manuals down stairs I should have just done some reading. It is easy to see the members here have much much more diverse exsperiance with reloading then I have and I was taking advantage of the resource. When you get down to it there are lots of things the books can and can't teach you and by sharing on a forum like this we all end up better shooters (hopefully). I have never been one to exsperiment with my loads I always stay well within the guide line of my reloading bibles

So lets put this to rest and may I say thanks to all that have given there assistance

THANKS Silvyus

[Marlin Junky]

Bruce,

I did some fiddling with primer pocket depth tonight and discovered that when reaming Starline .44M cases to accommodate a Fed 210 one needs to remove about .005" to .007" before the primer seats flush or slightly countersunk. When removing this amount of brass, the web on a .44M Starline case is still .010" thicker than the web on a .45C Starline case. So there ya go... if you've got an action that'll handle 50K CUP, load the .44 Magnum up (gradually) and use rifle primers... or just be satisfied with the mundane. :)

MJ

[BluesBear]

44man, Good post and wonderful example of been there done that.
Some folks is slow learners though.


So this is my final contribution to this bruhaha.

Considering that a standard Large Rifle primer is of slightly greater brisance than a Magnum Large Pistol primer the following becomes very relevant;



Several years ago I was on the Buena Vista, Colorado, shooting range with my friend Allan Jones, editor of Speer Reloading Manual Number 12. I noticed that in this particular manual one of my favorite magnum revolver powders, Hercules (now Alliant) 2400, was giving rather low velocities in .357 and .44 Magnum cartridges, especially when compared with Hodgdon H-110 and Winchester 296 powders. I had also noticed the data had been obtained using CCI Magnum Pistol primers. I mentioned to Allan that in my experience with 2400, it had always given better accuracy, lower pressures and extreme spreads when ignited by a standard primer. And Hercules had always recommended using standard primers and never Magnums. Allan seemed genuinely interested, stating he would take a closer look at it upon returning to the Speer lab.

I thought little about our conversation until the Speer Reloading Manual Number 13 was published a couple of years later. In referencing it I noticed 2400 data for both the .357 and .44 Magnums had been "re-shot" using CCI 500 and 300 standard primers, respectively. This time, however, 2400 gave substantially higher velocities, while staying within SAAMI pressure limits. Allan even commented in the .357 and .44 Magnum chapters that when they changed from Magnum to standard primers, performance was "significantly improved."

In discussing this matter with Allan (as well as other labs), this change in components alone can affect pressures by as much as 20 to 25 percent. For example, one lab reported more than a 10,000 psi increase in pressure when changing from a CCI 300 to a 350 primer in .44 Magnum loads that were running 35,000 psi with 2400. (This illustrates the importance of using loads exactly as shown from a manual or reputable source.)


Now I'm all for experimentation. I've certainly done more than my share.
Years ago™, I wasted a lot of time and money experimenting with small rifle primers in Super .38 ACP. All I really did was blow out some case heads, crack a set of grips and ruin a couple of magazines.
So y'all go ahead and do it your way.
After all, who cares about better accuracy, lower pressures and smaller standard deviation?


:roll:

[Whitespider]

There’s more to primer brisance than how “hot” it is. To say that primer X is hotter than primer Y doesn’t explain much. “Brisance” is used as a descriptive for the aggregation of things that happen when a primer ignites.

1) Energy
2) Pressure increase
3) Heat
4) Flame
5) Burning sparks/embers
6) Burn time

If primer X has more heat and sparks, but less flame and burn time than primer Y, which primer is “hotter” (has more brisance)?

A few years ago I was out of work for nine months. I spent that whole summer experimenting with primers in revolvers and rifles. I fired thousands of rounds over the chronograph. The more I experimented, the more confused I became. I did learn one very important lesson, primer choice is very important to load consistency.

I could come up with no “rule of thumb” when it comes to primers. Two different guns shooting the same loads may like different primers igniting the load. Increase the powder charge from a mid-range load to a high-end load in the same gun and a primer change may be required for load consistency. The same powder in two similar cartridges like different primers. Some magnum primers appear to have less brisance than some standard primers. It’s simply not true that slow burning ball powders always need a magnum primer. Etc., etc., etc.

But, one thing was quite obvious across the board. A primer that was “too hot” for the load was much more detrimental to consistency than a primer “too cold” for the load. A load with a “too cold” primer would show high ES/SD, but a load with a “too hot” primer would have wild velocity/pressure swings (as much as 400 fps in some loads).

All that said, I did find one revolver load that liked a small rifle primer. My Blackhawk .32-20 liked a 120gr. GC boolit, IMR 4227 and an old Herter’s Small Rifle primer I had in the cabinet. One rifle, a .22 Hornet did best with most loads using standard small pistol primers.

Just my TWO CENTS worth, if it’s worth anything.

[felix]

That is a great post for beginners, BB. None of the posts in this thread has talked about the pressure curve itself, and the problem associated in measuring the incremental values. All of the devices used are extremely slow in reaction. We are interested in how the container of the absolute pressure at any one location reacts to the pressure curve itself. If any one point is considered, that point of measurement should be at the weakest part of the container whatever that might be for the gun in question. Keep in mind the pressure curve is extremely dynamic because there are two ignitions, one for the primer, one for the powder. They overlap considerably and how that looks in detail is significant. ... felix

Addendum..........what whitespider said in his post is right on!!!!!!!!!!!

[9.3X62AL]

I'm certainly glad that a few posters in this thread are boolit casters and reloaders--and not physicians. Your bedside manner would kill patients.

NOTHING discourages learning like an arrogant, holier-than-thou, overbearing. didactic response to someone's question concerning an element of this hobby. NOTHING! I don't care how many years you or I have been shooting or handloading--AT SOME POINT IN THAT PROCESS WE WERE ALL NEW TO THE GAME. With that in mind, I respectfully request........no, I INSIST AND DEMAND that you treat others with tact and respect when responding to their posts. If that is a problem for you--THEN LEAVE, AND DON'T RETURN.

This is NOT intended to discourage disagreement, far from it. I made a living in an adversarial court system that has its flaws, but remains perhaps the best system for sorting questions of fact from fiction devised by man. I fully accept--no, I welcome debate and discussion. BUT DO SO WITH A LITTLE CLASS, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. To demean someone, to strip them of dignity--is to invite a fight. If those are the invitations you want to send out, lose this mailing address.

In closing, I make no pretense of being an especially gifted firearms hobbyist. I do have some insight into the future, however.....and I predict we will be short a few members before the weekend is out.

[9.3X62AL]

BruceB, Whitespider, and Felix--

THANK YOU for your measured, informative responses to the original poster's questions. As always.

Silvyus--

You didn't start the heated part of the debate. No sweat.

[steveb]

Now I'm all for experimentation. I've certainly done more than my share.
Years ago™, I wasted a lot of time and money experimenting with small rifle primers in Super .38 ACP. All I really did was blow out some case heads, crack a set of grips and ruin a couple of magazines.
So y'all go ahead and do it your way.
After all, who cares about better accuracy, lower pressures and smaller standard deviation?



Gentleman, I have been handloading for around three years and I should have known better. Last week I ran out of WLP primers and decided to use LR primers I had laying around while loading for the 45ACP. I did not think (DUH!:roll: ) of possible higher pressures with the charge of Titegroup I was using, as I was to worried about the height of the primer. The primers height was just fine but something raised the pressure to the point of failure. I dont know if I accidentaly overcharged the case, but know for a fact I was using large rifle primers...NOT GOOD!!!.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m193/stevensavage/100_4704Small.jpg

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m193/stevensavage/100_4710Small.jpg

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m193/stevensavage/100_4708Small.jpg

I loaded up five rounds in the magazine for my Para-Ordnance and on the fourth shot it let go and blew the 5th cartridge out of the bottom of the mag through the floor plate. The magazine was blown out as well. The only thing this mistake done was stretch the magazine out a thousanth and I need a new floor plate. The rest of this Para-Ordnance is just fine and not hurt a bit. Thank goodness it has a ramped barrel or it could have turned out worse IMO.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m193/stevensavage/100_4718Small.jpg


I am lucky I wasnt hurt and WILL be using the intended primers from here on out....Steve.

P.S...Thanks again for checking out my Para Jim!

[9.3X62AL]

WOW--whatever happened, it ain't good! Glad to hear that you are safe and well. Did you look at the other fired cases to see what (if any) abnormalities were apparent?

SOBERING pic. Thanks for posting that.

[Marlin Junky]

Gentleman, I have been handloading for around three years and I should have known better. Last week I ran out of WLP primers and decided to use LR primers I had laying around while loading for the 45ACP. I did not think (DUH!:roll: ) of possible higher pressures with the charge of Titegroup I was using, as I was to worried about the height of the primer. The primers height was just fine but something raised the pressure to the point of failure. I dont know if I accidentaly overcharged the case, but know for a fact I was using large rifle primers...NOT GOOD!!!.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think anyone ever suggested that a direct substitution of rifle primers for pistol primers in the .44 Magnum without first reducing the powder charge was condoned and I would only do so when handloading for a rifle such as the Marlin 1894, an original M92 in good condition or M92 Reproduction (I guess the Ruger M96 would be OK too). After reaming out the required metal in a .44M primer pocket to enable a couple thou. below flush seating of a Fed 210 primer in a .44M Starline case, (as above) I decided it's too much effort to convert a large batch of cases from LP pockets to LR pockets but that doesn't say I wouldn't do so if I could mechanize the process. Why would I bother? I probably wouldn't unless I purchased a M92 Repro in .44 Magnum... after all, the Marlin is not a 50K psi gun.

MJ

[44man]

I hope it wasn't me that started a debate! I only relate my experiences.
Steve's experience is what I am afraid of with the wrong primer. And I do blame the primer!
Could this be classified as an SEE event where the bullet is moved into the rifling by primer pressure, stops and then the powder burn pressure hits it?
Scary to say the least.

[Marlin Junky]

I hope it wasn't me that started a debate!

I don't think 9.3x62AL is discouraging debate. I personally would appreciate a more mature decorum though. Basically when I start reading a post and I don't like it's tone I just quit reading it at that point and don't really care if it contains useful information or not.

MJ

[MT Gianni]

I have some 357 loads that use a rifle primer. They are for Blackhawk only and were recommended and worked up to using that primer. More importantly is the basic handloaders advice that when you have a maximum load and change any component to drop back powder volumn and start over. Most of our cast loads are not warm so we tend to substitute with out reworking but should not forget this principle. Gianni

[felix]

Never out of the question, 44Man, but not probable in this PARTICULAR situation because of the choice of powder, which is known for easier ignition. Also, you can visualize the lack of chamber support (for a loaded round) which is inherent in guns having a large "loading" angle to allow various ammo specs to chamber. Typical for guns having short slides, such as auto pistols and pistol lever guns specifically. ... felix

[alamogunr]

I have nothing to add to this discussion except to say that I appreciate very much the educational aspects of this thread. I've never had any reason to try such a substitution, but without this information from those with more knowledge and first hand experience I might have been tempted somewhere down the road.

John

[Marlin Junky]

I have some 357 loads that use a rifle primer. They are for Blackhawk only and were recommended and worked up to using that primer. More importantly is the basic handloaders advice that when you have a maximum load and change any component to drop back powder volumn and start over. Most of our cast loads are not warm so we tend to substitute with out reworking but should not forget this principle. Gianni

Small primers all have the same cup height (unless something has changed in the last 5-10 years) and I've found with compressed charges of 296, a small rifle magnum primer in a strong .357 handgun (such as the Blackhawk) does a very good job of extracting the last bit of umph out of the lil' cartridge and certainly doesn't hurt in the accuracy department.

MJ

[buck1]

Silvyus ,
I think your question is fine ! You didnt ask about something not related.
As a rule, no dont use rifle primers in pistol cases unless called for, as in a .454 . But most of us here know that a caster is by nature a experimenter.
So often the so called facts are just wrong or at least open for discussion. And a little more input is a very helpfull thing. Most of us Know not everything you need is in a book somewhere. Sure LOTS of it is, but by no means all of it.
MOST here will be happy to help anyway we can with any reloading question you may have. So dont be discouraged by a ,what I belive to be a" more then a little rude" post.....Buck

[steveb]

I very well may have double charged this case to cause this. I also could have let one slip by with a high primer as well? I have tried to nail down THE reason for this but it could have been a couple different things. Here is a closer pic of the case head. Where the firing pin hit the primer is flat. It is hard to tell from the pic but the crater is flatter than a pancake.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m193/stevensavage/45ACPcasehead1.jpg

[Fireball 57]

Thanks, ALL, for this informative and enlightening discussion! Substitution of components has varied results. Truly, "...We are all new to this game...!" SteveB: Glad to know you are okay!

Fireball

[Dragoon]

I very well may have double charged this case to cause this. I also could have let one slip by with a high primer as well? I have tried to nail down THE reason for this but it could have been a couple different things. Here is a closer pic of the case head. Where the firing pin hit the primer is flat. It is hard to tell from the pic but the crater is flatter than a pancake.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m193/stevensavage/45ACPcasehead1.jpg

I guess you were too busy cleaning out your under pants to pick up the first three empties?

[kenjuudo]

I guess you were too busy cleaning out your under pants to pick up the first three empties?


Dragoon, He wasn't so rattled as to not pick the other cases up, they appear normal but do smell faintly like a used diaper. Looked like a double charge to me, although I'm sure the choice of primmer didn't help matters.

jim

[9.3X62AL]

FWIW, a couple of the firearms forensics guys at the Cal-DOJ Lab in Riverside used to "destroy" 1911A1-pattern pistols court-ordered for destruction by running rounds double-charged with Bullseye under 230 FMJ's. Trouble was.....the pistols functioned fine, with VIGOROUS ejection and a small swelled case area that apparently overlay the feedramp. Several dozen of these rounds went through the pistols on several occasions. No discernable damage was done to the pistols, and none of the cases did the Steve B bit. Actually, the cases looked a lot like 40 S&W's fired in a first-series Glock 22/23. A triple-charge of Bullseye finally stopped one pistol, distending the chamber area sufficiently to jam the slide--BUT THE PISTOL AND THE CASING HELD. A couple more of the pre-stressed as above 1911's were given the triple charge bit, and same result--distention, jammed slide, but no catastrophic failure. I should note that all firing was done from a lab fixture. Participation in that test series showed me that the 1911A1 is one over-built platform.

It is from that experience that I drew the "sobering" conclusion to Steve's results. I would submit that some form of "perfect storm" situation occurred, resulting in the catastrophic destruction of the case.

[Silvyus]

Steveb thank GOD your ok. and thank you Buck1 I was a bit discoraged at one point in this thread but soon realized there was alot more here then I first thought and over all I hope some good has come from the debate. I have learned that I have no interest in exspereminting out side of suggested load data.

[felix]

Well, if it cannot be explained via normal knowledge, then for sure 44Man was correct is assuming the SEE condition. I have seen it once in 38 special with the normal 2.7BE with flush wadcutter load, using a mod 52 smith. Not a double charge, triple charge, etc. ... felix

[AZ-Stew]

Well, apparently I ticked off several folks here. That wasn't the intent. On the othe hand, I won't apologize for what I said in the original post. I stand by it. Nor will I leave the group.

The matter of substitution of rifle and pistol primers is adequately discussed in every handloading manual I've read. I own and have read dozens of them over the last 35 years. This issue is part of Handloading 101. It is not a matter of first importance in this discussion group. Silvyus admits that he should have read the manuals. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not making this a "blame" contest. I'm saying that certain issues are basic handloading education, and this forum is for discussing a specialized sideline of handloading, which is bullet casting. By telling Silvyus to "go read the book", I was trying to help him avoid future mistakes.

While not everything having to do with handloading is included "in the books", there is certainly enough there to get one started safely. In my estimation, those who don't "read the book" and follow the safety procedures therein have little regard for their own safety nor that of those with whom they shoot.

Certainly, as noted earlier, my writing style is terse. If you consider it tactless, so be it. On the other hand, if you can find any technical arguments with what I said in my first post, I'll be happy to entertain a debate.

Regards,

Stew

[buck1]

Stew, I dont want you to apologize, or leave . And your technical arguments are correct.
But concider this...
If I am hitting off of target, I have to hold in a new spot or adjust my sights.
Call it common courtsy, respect, or just plain manners or whatever you like.
But in my humble opinion , your "writing style" may just need some basic refinements.
You can say the same basic thing , but get a positive outcome and turn it into a productive thread. And no one even gets ticked.
Either way I wish you the best ,and I carry no grudges. Have a good one...Buck

[Bret4207]

I too have been known to be a bit "terse" from time to time. Still, better to think before hitting the "enter" button. This place gets along better when everyone tries to get along. We can't tell from the words written how you meant to come across and that leads to problems like this.

[Old Ironsights]

I have some 357 loads that use a rifle primer. They are for Blackhawk only and were recommended and worked up to using that primer. More importantly is the basic handloaders advice that when you have a maximum load and change any component to drop back powder volumn and start over. Most of our cast loads are not warm so we tend to substitute with out reworking but should not forget this principle. Gianni

This is my question as well. 90% of my reloading is for .357 (M92 & SP101). The rest is for .40 and .223.

Now, given the increasing (and ultimate?) dearth of primers, understanding how/when/why to use Small Rifle Primers in place of Small Pistol/SPM primers (and vice-versa) would be a "good thing".

Hoarding is all fine and well, but sometimes you just gotta make do...

[BruceB]

Surely, no one thought this thread would just die away?

The points at issue in the discussion are firstly, the physical fit of rifle primers in .44 magnum primer pockets, and secondly, the ballistic performance of such primers in actual firing with .44 loads.

Those who've known me for a while also know that I tend to test things which "everyone KNOWS" to be fact. In many cases, I have proven to my own satisfaction that many of these "everyones" are full of prunes, as Jack O'Connor liked to say. NO offence intended to the present company!

Right now, I'll address the issue of the fit of the primers to the brass.

In my shop I found several types of used .44 magnum brass. These include the headstamps R-P, FC, ELD, and Winchester. In my shop I also found CCI rifle primers of the 200, 250 and #34 persuasions, plus some Federal 215s.

I've been at this for over 40 years, and I KNOW what amount of effort is OK and what is "too much" when seating primers.

Using my cases with four different headstamps, and RIFLE primers of four different classes, I successfully and safely seated ALL the primer types in ALL the different cases with approximately-normal seating pressure, and ALL were slightly below-flush with the casehead...safe for revolver use, in other words. One more thing; I did NOT clean the pockets before doing this. Seating was done in my All-American turret press.

I am NOT recommending that anyone follow my example. I said that I had done this successfully decades ago. when it was a case of make-do or not have ammunition. I am revisiting those days with today's components. There is now no need for such stopgaps, but I'm interested, and I'm going to follow through.

When I get a day off, probably next Monday, I'll load a series of comparison loads for my .44 SBH. They will contain 20.0 of TODAY'S 2400, a slightly-different powder than the 2400 I used in 1970 (which is why the charge will also be reduced from the 22.0 I used then). The bullets will be RCBS 250KT, and the primers will be as listed above. One make of brass will be fired. Ten rounds with each rifle primer, plus ten control rounds with CCI 300 LPs, should give some indication of what's going on when chronographed.

Again, I am NOT saying that anyone else should do this. Just set on back and see what happens as I tilt at yet another windmill....

[Old Ironsights]

I like your style Bruce. I wish I had the time/energy/money/components to play like that...

I'll have to satisfy myself with working on the .410 SLAM slug project...

[waksupi]

Sic 'em, Bruce!

[44man]

Bruce, I would make sure to have the maximum case tension you can get and a very tight crimp when you play with the rifle primers. Truth is that I am afraid of them in revolver cases.
Remember that you can get away with some things for years, it only takes ONE event to destroy a gun. You might run the whole test and be quite happy with results and report here that it is a safe practice, then a year or two from now you can blow up a gun.
Another thing to consider is the make of primer, some rifle primers might have no more pressure then a LP mag primer and would be perfectly safe. Then someone reads your results and uses another brand of LR primer and has a bad experience. I do not want to be the one to tell others that it is OK to use them.
I am sure you would never tell anyone that it is OK to shoot 100 gr's of FFFFG in their .54 muzzle loader because you did it once!
Any time you are playing with enough pressure to force a boolit out into the bore before the powder burns, you are leaning towards the danger sign. You will never predict when one piece of brass will release a boolit too soon. And that, my friend, is the scary part! How do you know what dies someone else is using and what case tension they are working with? Can you predict that their brass is good and will hold a boolit until the powder reaches pressure?
I am going to err on the side of caution and say; Don't do it!

[44man]

One thing I didn't consider! You reduce the load for the LR primer and run into a soft case that releases the boolit, does the reduced load then make it safe to have a boolit out in the bore before lighting fully? Think about it!

[OLPDon]

Now if it were me I would just get a new rifle that I been wanting for a while. Not a scientific solution but one that will last and bring that great feeling you get with something new, and give you and your next of kin something to enjoy. As a matter of fact should you keep tipping the hand of fate the next of kin might just be admiring what you beqeath them.
Just a thought, sometimes "It just ant worth it"[smilie=1:
Don

[truckboss]

hi jack, but just allttle.gota fa in 454,it calls for a smallrifle,been wanting to try a pistol primer.trying to start the boolit off a little( easyer ).may be the case capacity needs a big flame,anybody













)

[45nut]

The pressure of a 454 is in the 60K+ pressure area,,, a small pistol primer is not rated past 30k if I remember right. That is a bad idea.

[44man]

A small rifle primer has the heat it needs but not the ooomph of a LR primer. Maybe the reason they went to it for the .454. The larger case is safer then the .44 too, with the added pressure.
I believe my friend uses a SP primer in his, I will ask him. I don't think he loads real hot though.
My .475 brass is made from 45-70 brass and I was told by two powder companies NOT to use LR primers due to pressure issues. I use LP mag primers. I use pretty hot loads and never had a flat primer yet even when I worked to the sticky case area. Thats a much larger case then the .44!

[drinks]

I was interested in the difference in primer pocket depth, I got all the empty cases I could find, in as many different rifle calibers as possible and a variety of brands,
The primer pockets varied from .123" for a Norma case, to .136" for a Privi Partizan case.
I have since started measuring at least some of each brand I have, the possibility of a slamfire due to a high primer worries me some.