i have seen sr primers used in 9x21 hot ammo for pressure protection,
but this is a different subject.
i am getting ready to do load development for 135's in a 3" 38.
several sets of data from guickload show poor powder burn/lots of unburnt powder/not efficient.
i was considering going to a sr primer, and working up from a lower starting point,
and see what happens, i have several flavors of sr primers to chose from.
anyone done this ??
going a bit further,
i expect to be shooting at max..17000 psi plus or minus a little, but not plus p.
bullets are the newer speer 135 short bbl hp..really big hp. they are designed for low speed operation,
short bbl'd 38's have a hard time creating velocity. i am looking for 900+ fps.
really fast powder burns clean, gets the velocity, but the speed of the burn greats(imho) a "snap" and i would like to reduce
the gun movement for faster follow up shots.
computer data
accurate #2 gives 909 with 93% burn
accurate #5 gives 939 with 77% burn
so back off the starting load of #5 add a sr primer, and see how much powder to get to 939.
then subjective..look at the pistol...did it burn cleaner ?
I think you are expecting too much from a small rifle primer.
And I think you are obsessing over theoretical calculations over what the real science is, which is trying various load combinations to see which gives the highest velocity and ballistic consistency. A small rifle primer does not help to overcome low loading density and low pressures, which cause the problems you might find.
Experiment until you find a good combo, but ballistic miracles are not to be found. Just acceptable performance when you find it. I’ll save you time and suggest you avoid Hodgdon Universal powder like the plague in any attempt to find your Grail.
You also must accept that ballistic consistency will be lower than, say, a 9mm or 40 caliber pistol no matter what you try. Just the nature of the limitations you are up against.
but it is not low pressure nor low load density.
unless you are saying 38s is a low pressure round to begin with.
all the data is at the top without going into plus p.
load density goes from 50-88%
considering some powders will do 30% i do not see these as low.
just looking to see if the primer will improve the burn, it is the effeciency that sucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35remington
Compared to the two rounds I mentioned, the 38 Special is a low pressure low loading density round. Such things cause issues with poor powder and bullet selection. Using lighter bullets increases the tendency toward low loading density.
In any event you have to work within the limitations you have, but good results can be had. Just temper your expectations with reality. Ballistic uniformity is found by measuring it, not by looking to see how clean a case is.
I have never found primer type, including small magnum primers, to be a key component of 38 Special load uniformity. I had better luck with good selection of bullet type and avoiding the more undesirable powders.
It really is not complicated.
Somewhere on this forum ( I think) a fellow checked with the primer company and found that there is no difference between a SP and a SR primer. I know I had a few hundred left over from when I had a .454 and used them in my 9mm just recently. I didn't notice any difference, and I was using several different powders and loads.
I have been under the impression for years now that the only difference between rifle primers and pistols primers were the hardness of the metal used to form the cups. I know there is a difference in the powder composition between regular and magnum primers in both. . Am I right or wrong? james
Use a magnum small pistol primer. Small rifle primers are harder and usually will not ignite consistently in .38 revolvers.
SP & SR are the same sizeQuote:
Originally Posted by TNsailorman
LP & LR are different sizes. Use your micrometer and you'll see this. I believe magnum primers may be a bit hotter. I know Match primers are those that passed Q.C. scrutiny with flying colors. I used the magnum match primers when I had my 7mm Rem Mag. After a LOT of tinkering and testing and different things I found that they DID help to shrink my groups considerably, all other things being equal....
but i am only shooting a 39 spcl...not a 9mm not a 40 s&w , so bringing them up is just wasted bandwidth.
when you have some positive personal input to using different primers in 38 spcl , please feel free to comment .till then please go away.
look at my question, not what you want to talk about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35remington
if your starting with quickload why not simply use a powder that the computer program says is a better choice then what you want to use?
example if you want to use powder x, and the program says its "a really crappy choice", why not simply use a powder the program says is a good choice?
I did say that primer type does not help. You may have been hoping to hear otherwise, but that does not change my findings.
It's really up to the company that's making the primers. Call the cci 800 # and ask if the sp & sr primers are the same & they'll tell you something stupid like "Heck, the anvil's ain't even the same." Then pick up a box of s&b primers and right on the box they say for rifle, pistol or revolver.
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/psC0I4B.jpg[/IMG]
As far as sr primers aiding in a better/more consistent burn? Absolutely!!! I use those s&b primers pictured above for the 223rem (h335/bl-c2/h380), all p+ 38spl loads, all 9mm loads & all 357 loads. You will not get huge jumps in velocity using the sr primers in the 38spl's. But you will get a lot lower sd & es's. All's you need is a firearm in good working order. There's a lot of talk about wrong components but yet I've seen the same people post they're getting huge +/- 80fps swings with the same powder I'm getting +/- 40fps. I guess that's called wrong components or they have firearms issues don't know it or how to recognize it. Or posters that say there's no way to get that kind of velocity other than using a lighter bullet with the same load. ???? Last I knew if you use the same load the heavier the bullet, the higher the velocity. But , heck, this is the internet after all.
Do yourself a huge favor, call a couple 800 #'s and get it strait from the horses mouth. Then do a little testing, it will not take long for you to answer your own questions.
My guess here is that the 3" barrel is THE limiting factor on how much of your powder is going to burn; If you had a longer barrel more would burn, low pressure is also contributing. Maybe try a bit faster powder? Should give you more efficient & cleaner loads.
If you want to stay with Accurate powders, of course, #2 and #5 are your only real choices in that speed range; Is Winchester 231 a possibility?
The rifle primers aren’t going to change much of anything. If you only want people who will validate your question you might not have anyone answer the question.
If you think the rifle primers will work better, try it out. You aren’t going to hurt anything, and most likely you won’t even notice any difference. If you do notice any difference it’s only because you are hoping to see a difference.
i have dome load development for a 6" 357 in both mag and 38 spcl.
i have done load development for a 3" 38 spcl with 125gr bullets.
i purchased speer 135 gr SHORT BBL BULLETS for load development in a 3" 38 spcl.
now( go read what i posted not what you want it to says) i am trying to find out if i can improve the BURN of some of the slower POWDERS by changing PRIMERS.
improve EFFICIENCY, NOTHING ELSE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Sheesh
The only thing I can add to the subject is non uniform ignition. I tried the same thing with 38sp in a K38 with
6" barrel. For same reason unburnt powder. I didn't get as far as checking that because groups opened up considerably. At first I thought sights had come loose. Quit the project and had used CCI & Rem SR with same
results.
Let m explain concisely what I did.
Variations in velocity, and therefore in pressure, and therefore in how the powder burns, occur most notably when the powder is allowed to wander from primer to bullet.
Therefore, I used several brands of primers, from mild Remington 1 1/2 to hotter, supposedly, magnum primers to CCI small rifle primers in one instance.
Improvements were desired in reducing extreme spreads from a powder forward to powder rearward position. This mimics the variation in position possible whe the pistol is drawn from a holster versus say, being tipped up before shooting the first shot when handled.
I modeled the worst case scenario to ensure it occurred consistently when shooting. In several instances the supposedly hotter primers did no better than, and in several cases a little worse than, the regular primers in reducing velocity variation from extremes in powder positioning. Depending upon powder type used, and there were a number from fast to slow, supposedly hotter primers did not give higher velocities with identical powder charges than slower primers.
My suppositions for those observed results are as follows.
Firstly, with powder near the front of the case, a limited area is presented for the primer to ignite. Therefore a hotter primer’s flash is not communicated to more powder because it is not thrown about.
To explain the lower velocity results or no improvement in velocity results or extreme spreads with powder near primer, I suppose the hotter primer may have moved the bullet slightly more before pressure built up, increasing case volume before pressures built to their maximum. This increase in case volume offset somehow the usage of supposedly hotter primers.
In smaller cartridges or those using heavier bullets I have seen hotter primers give slight velocity increases, such as 380 ACP, or when using small pistol versus large pistol primers with 230 grain bulletsin 45 ACP, but that was in average general shooting and not powder position testing. Kinda apples to oranges.
That is why I said what I said. The revolvers used had full power mainsprings installed to give all primers maximum whack.
My concern was addressing velocity variation from extremes in powder position. While I did not and do not care how cleanly the powder burns by comparison, it is logical to figure high velocity gives a cleaner burn than lower velocity with the same powder. So successfully addressing one will address the other.
In my testing I did not successfully address that by changing primers. I much more successfully addressed it by changing bullet weight, by increasing bullet seating depth within the limitations of bullet type (think wadcutter or more deeply seated heavier conventional bullet here) and avoiding powder which in testing gave higher velocity variation than other powders. These do exist.
Loading density helps greatly, more so than primer type in my testing, but there were exceptions to loading density being the overriding factor in all instances. Certain powders like Bullseye and Titegroup gave better uniformity than powders that have more bulk and fill the case more like Unique. Universal was horrible in that regard as it lacks bulk and is slower.
Even supposedly position insensitive Titegroup becomes inconsistent when bullet seating depth becomes quite shallow and bullet weight gets lighter. I think both the OP and myself were and are trying to address inconsistency. My way of directly measuring that was by measuring velocity variation, which is a certain way of quantifying it.
To reiterate, what I was testing for was to see if I could make the 38 produce more uniform velocities under extremes of powder position, which are quite likely to occur when the gun is employed and therefore increase its observed efficiency. Turns out I could do that, but not by changing primer type.
My results are what they were, and unless my testing methods are identical to someone else’s my results may be different. If the powder is not deliberately positioned in the case before shooting you may be testing for something other than what I was testing for. I went after a phenomenon known to occur in an attempt to minimize it.
Now you know why I said what I said, and why I make the 38 more “efficient” by changing things other than primer type.
But as was said before, do your own testing under your own conditions and see what is relevant for you.
A pressure of 17,000psi is really nothing. I use standard small pistol primers in cartridges with pressures over double that and similar case capacity to the .38special. If you get the itch with playing with hotter primers you could try a small pistol magnum, try different brands too. Though I don't think you need it. In .44mag I know you can often get better groups using a large pistol primer vs a large pistol magnum.
Reader’s Digest Version of the above:
An efficient 38 Special load is found, and most consistent powder burn obtained, when velocity variation is minimized when powder position shifts from extreme front to extreme back of the case is induced under testing. I can find ways to minimize it, but switching primers did not get it done.
Bullet seating depth, bullet weight and powder choice were how I increased efficiency.