Primer power

Hodgdon's reloading data says they used WSR primers for 454 Casull with H110. Am email from Winchester told me that "you cannot use small rifle primers with a 454". Go figure that one. I was loading 300 gr boolits with H110 and ran out of CCI SR Magnum primers but I have some Winchester WSR primers and I see that Winchester makes a large rifle mag primer but not a small mag. I have read that a lot of you, here in this forum use and like Winchester primers. My query is, has there ever been an independent test of the brisance of small rifle primers? Evidently Winchester thinks theirs is hot enough to not need a mag rating. I know that years ago the early Speer manuals recommended mag primers for all ball powders. I used mag primers in my 223 with BL-c2 and the accuracy got better and velocity spread went down when I did.

My way of looking at it is, since Hodgdon markets Winchester powder, supplies reload date for it I would go by what Hodgdon says.
Could I be wrong in my opinion, yes most certainly.
But I wouldnt be afraid in the least to use the primer Hodgdon says. Of course Ive used Federal, Remington, CCI in the 454 Casull.

were the primers you used in the 454 magnum designation? I guess the reason I tread so lightly in the selection is because I had a non magnum primer push the powder charge and Speer 158 gr about 2 inches up the barrel in a 357 Ruger ...Twice. What a mess to clean out on the range. The primers were stored in climate controlled area and no contaminates were on them. The crimp was a heavy one rolled into the cannelure.
44man(Jim) it's questions like this when we miss your input!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murf205

were the primers you used in the 454 magnum designation? I guess the reason I tread so lightly in the selection is because I had a non magnum primer push the powder charge and Speer 158 gr about 2 inches up the barrel in a 357 Ruger ...Twice. What a mess to clean out on the range. The primers were stored in climate controlled area and no contaminates were on them. The crimp was a heavy one rolled into the cannelure.

---

I used Rem. 7 1/2, Federal 205 and CCI 450.
I didn't use low charges of hard to ignite powders in the 454.
Still that doesn't keep me from using Hodgdond data with the recipes they create.

While not in a 454, I use WSR primers extensively with H110 in 357 Magnum. As to any difference between WSP and WSR, I once got myself confused when priming and primed my pistol cases with WSR and my rifle cases with WSP and both worked fine. I also have switched back and forth in my 357 Magnum between WSPM and WSR and saw no difference (I did see a difference with WSP vs WSPM-- but not huge).

There must be a standard by which manufacturer's distinguish standard from magnum primers or maybe not. Maybe I am asking too much for the companies to give up the brisance of their primers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murf205

There must be a standard by which manufacturer's distinguish standard from magnum primers or maybe not. Maybe I am asking too much for the companies to give up the brisance of their primers.

---

I try to be careful when I load. But I do my own experimentation. If it were me and I were concerned about the WAR primers I would load and shoot and maybe Chrono the loads and move from there. So my question still is since Hodgdon sells Winchester powder and does the load data why be anymore concerned than using any other data by other loading companies? I use standard primers alot in 44 Magnum. Don't worry at all about it. Again I didn't use low charges of powder in the 454. I have used 515 grain bullets in a 454 Casull Encore though. Never worried about that either and 415 in a Freedom Arms.

I found some pics of the primer flash on the accurateshooter.com website under 6mmBR and the difference is pretty dramatic. I cant get them to load here or I would post. There is a LOT of difference on the flame strength. I will load the
Winchester small rifle primers and see but my chrono is a magneto speed and it is not revolver friendly.

Attachment 298905Attachment 298906Attachment 298907Attachment 298908
Here are the photos. A lot of difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murf205

Attachment 298905Attachment 298906Attachment 298907Attachment 298908
Here are the photos. A lot of difference.

---

So... What is what?

It is pics of different primers being detonated. The top is a Fed205LR, next one down is a Win LR, next down is a Fed 205SR, and bottom is a CCI BR4 SR. The Win small rifle was not included in these photo's, maybe they couldn't get any but they illustrate that just because we call them standard or magnum, there is a difference between the brands and apparent strengths of flame. I am just wondering why Winchester doesn't offer a small rifle magnum primer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murf205

It is pics of different primers being detonated. The top is a Fed205LR, next one down is a Win LR, next down is a Fed 205SR, and bottom is a CCI BR4 SR. The Win small rifle was not included in these photo's, maybe they couldn't get any but they illustrate that just because we call them standard or magnum, there is a difference between the brands and apparent strengths of flame. I am just wondering why Winchester doesn't offer a small rifle magnum primer.

---

You need to look at the top two again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 44MAG#1

You need to look at the top two again.

---

Right, I left the "m" out of the Fed210m. The M is for match as I understand it. The 2nd one is a Large Rifle as I understand the letters
Their Mag primers have a M designation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murf205

Right, I left the "m" out of the Fed210m. The M is for match as I understand it.

---

The one on the top right is an RWS large rifle too.

The way they are loaded on my screen is top to bottom. I re-red the post from Outpost75 from 2020 and he stated that in his conversation with an Olin engineer, the engineer stated that there was no basic difference between Winchester primers-std or mag- that they were made on the same line. He also stated that it was for the bean counters to benefit from the different designations.
44MAG#1 you are right that one is a RWS LR and it is one hot primer if those pics are any indication.

I did a Chrono test maybe 3 years ago on some different primers to see the difference when everything else was the same. I shot the test back to back. Tested the WLP primer and there was a difference between the two lots. This is nothing new.
With the differences just in "lots" of powder I just don't worry about things much anymore. I just try to be careful and do my OWN testing.
Nothing is written in stone when it comes to ballistics. That is something to REMEMBER no matter who says it concerning ballistics.

With the differences just in "lots" of powder I just don't worry about things much anymore. I just try to be careful and do my OWN testing.
Nothing is written in stone when it comes to ballistics. That is something to REMEMBER no matter who says it concerning ballistics.

That is probably the ONLY way to approach primer selection. I think I might have fallen victim to overthinking primer selection but you never learn if you don't ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murf205

With the differences just in "lots" of powder I just don't worry about things much anymore. I just try to be careful and do my OWN testing.
Nothing is written in stone when it comes to ballistics. That is something to REMEMBER no matter who says it concerning ballistics.

That is probably the ONLY way to approach primer selection. I think I might have fallen victim to overthinking primer selection but you never learn if you don't ask.

---

I have noticed that many overthink things a lot of times. If one uses their brain and is cautious works up a load with HIS COMPONENTS not much will happen. Being fearful is not the same as being careful. It can cause a problem in itself.
Funny how we get in a vehicle and drive around, even driving to the range and rarely consider the things that can happen doing that and then be oh so concerned about other things?
No one wants reloading problems but we will have them occasionally with the vast number of them very, very, very, very minor.
Look at the recalls on factory ammo, powders so even if we don't reload we aren't immune to problems with ammo.
Funny isn't it?

in past ive had problems with winchester sp from blue box, seems ever since they changed from the white packages when they were silver colored to the blue packages with brass colored primers they have been very inconsistent in my experience. but the wlp have always worked well wether its lighting off bullseye or h110.
I guess just like powder, primers can vary from lot to lot, some brands more so than others. overall I much prefer cci primers for consistency. crazy thing is the least expensive I ever bought were seiller beloit and ive never had any problem with them and usually in past when buying primers its in lots of 20000. I case each of the sp, lp, sr and lr.
maybe I just got a bad lot of wsp
I also keep federal and Remington primers and like certain ones for certain rounds like Remington 6 1/2 for the hornet and 25-20 . and all the Remington as well as federal primers seem to be consistent. ive found the rem 7 1/2 work equally well as cci sr or 41's for 5.56. rem 1 1/2 I use for 38 spl.

I think that the reason I started casting a jaded eye toward Winchester primers is the fact that I bought a brick of LR's about 20 yrs ago and they were undersized. They mic'ed almost .001 smaller than the CCI's I had been using and you could tell that when seating them. I called W-W and the lady I spoke to gave me a packing slip to return them and said she would let me know what they found out. Sure enough, she sent a voucher for W-W products and said they were indeed undersized. Now let me be clear, I didn't start this thread to bash Winchester, they make some excellent components. My question was why they have std and mag primers but not a mag designation for small rifle. I think that the post by Outpost75 clarified that and I thank him for that.

SR primers have a thicker cup than SP primers. IIRC, WW primers were fairly stout, but what pressures are you going to run in your loads? SR primers should be good to 223 levels (50K psi) and your SRM were good to at least 60K as they have a thicker cup than the SR primers. In my 353 Casull, I use sr primers unless I am nearing top loads, then I will use the srm. I am talking about rem 7 1/2, wolf srm or cci 450's. BR-4's also if I had any. CCI 41's were designed for 5.56 Nato stuff, but don't know if the 353 has enough to set those off. They might be the same as 450's or might be a bit tougher.
Now, I have read that the older ww sr primers in the white box had thicker cups than the blue box version and were OK for 5.56 nato spec ammo, but the blue box primer should be limited to 223 pressure levels. Over at accurateshooters, they have a pretty good discussion on primers and what primer should be used for what ammo.

The 223 loads are at normal 223 pressures. No ignition problems there but the accuracy improved measurably with the CCI 450's. However the load that particular rifle likes is older lot BL-c2. and 69 gr Sierra's. The 454 is loaded pretty much on the top with 290 and 300 gr boolits and I since I use a Magneto speed chrono, I wont be able to clock those. However I will take the advice to do my own testing and try both primer types when I get some more SR magnum primers.
I just received an answer from a Hodgdon Powder tech that stated that the small rifle primer was more than adequate for a 454 with H110/296. I imagine the bad experiences I had with H110 and standard primers are the reason for my concerns with regards to primer choice, but the memory if pounding a 158 gr Speer and cleaning out a charge of unburnt powder still linger!

i would question the milisec's when the photo's were snapped

Absolutely, we don't know the equipment used or the operator. That flame doesn't last long.