Substituting primers and playin with the 9mm

[littlejack]

So, about the beginning of the year, I bought my first 9mm pistol. It was the Sar 9. Very nice piece, and well made. A few months later, picked up a Sar 2000. It is the CZ-75 clone. Again, very nice piece, well made and nice fit and finish. But, I still wanted something lighter for carry, so I bought a Glock 48. I wanted a sub-compact, but also needed a longer grip for my big mitts. The 48 feels really good. I didn't intend on reloading ammunition for my 9's, but it got the best of me. Free brass laying all over the pistol ranges at the gun club, and 9mm bullets to be bought everywhere. So I started loading ammo about a month ago. I had two powders, neither of which would be optimum. I have HP-38, and Herco. I've been using my Little Dandy measure, but you cannot dial in on the powder charges. You use what the rotors drop. Either to little, right on or close to, or to much. I started with the Herco, and did find a decent charge weight of approximately 4.9 to 5.0 grains. This powder did result into some issues. Being that it is a large flake, it meters very poorly. It also "bridges" in the measure. So, when you drop a charge and it bridges, you get a light powder drop. Then, there is a good possibility of getting and overcharge in the next case. So I decided to try the HP-38 powder. This powder is a little hot, but can still give decent velocities. I would love to get my mitts on some CFE Pistol or Power Pistol. After some previous testing, I went to the range today with some new loads for testing. Powder HP-38. Weight 4.2 grains. Bullet, 125 grain "CN". Found out it stands for, "conical nose". Looks like a truncated cone with a slight radius on the nose. Hi-tec coated. Primers were Win Small Pistol. Results: Hi=1102, Lo=1068. Ave=1092. ES 34, SD 9. I ran out of Win Small Pistol primers, so after doing some research and reading about substituting srp's for spp's, I reprimed with CCI 400 small rifle primers. Results: Hi=1107, Lo= 1088. Ave=1097. ES 19, SD 5. As you can see, the main difference is the ES. Other than that, the CCI 400 Small Rifle Primers performed comparably to the Win Small Pistol primers. No high pressure signs, or violent recoil. I am not suggesting any one follow my primer substituting procedure, as this experiment was for my own information. I would appreciate other members to reply, as to what their favorite 9mm powders are.
Regards

[Thundarstick]

I can tell you from working with the 327 Federal Magnum (that uses SRP in factory loads) that SMP primers are softer and easier to ignite. You will run into ignition issues in many pistols substituting SMR for SMP primers, unless the weapon is sprung for SMR primers from the factory, as are 327 revolvers. Lighten up the DA trigger pull in a 327FM revolver and see how many misfires you have!

[Castaway]

That’s quite a long post, but the only real problem you’re having is your charge weight varies with the amount of powder in your dispenser. The solution is to take a 3x5 card, cut it into an oval with the “short” diameter matching the diameter of your dispenser, the long axis isn’t critical, maybe 1.5 the diameter. Cut a round notch at the “long” axis, fold in half and insert in your dispenser about a 1/3 from the bottom. Fill dispenser with powder and the notches will allow powder to flow towards the dispensing hole while keeping most of the powder mass on the card. Your thrown weights will still vary, that’s the nature of volumetric dispensers, but you’ll reduce the range of inconsistency.

[FISH4BUGS]

I use 231 (same as your HP38) with a cast H&G 331. SR primers will work just fine.
4.0 standard load, 4.8 +p load.
Plated I use 5.0 for the subguns.

[georgerkahn]

A very saged, old guru (now several years deceased ) at range used to voice that the difference in ignition from any one primer type to another is analogous to using a match from a paper book versus a large strike-anywhere wood match to light a smoke. The second consideration is the primer's outer diameter and depth has to coincide with the case pocket one is inserting it into; and third, the softness/harness of the primer's top need coincide with the strength/power of the striker or firing pin hitting it. Nothing more -- or less .
Vis what you posted, I'd note that the small RIFLE primers you used worked -- I'm happy for you -- and that they worked may in part be due to your having modern pistols with good springs. Most rifle primers require a bit more of a strike than their pistol-designed cousins.
Re the powder measuring challenge, what I do, albeit it is an extra step, is have my powder measure set to (MOST of the time) drop a load just a tad UNDER my desired weight. Then I dump measured powder on to a Dillon Determinator outboard scale and use a teeny plastic spoon to add powder to bring it up to exact desired eight. Bion, I've gotten to the point where I can pretty much add exact desired amount most of the time quite quickly! I then use a Saturn (metal) funnel to return now precise powder amount to case fo the next reloading step...
You mentioned "all the free brass..." which brings up another question from me: I know *I* only leave brass when either the "brass magician" (that invisible entity at range which performs the magic trick of making my brass disappear quite regularly at range) takes it; OR, the brass has been loaded the last "safe" (imho) time. Also, some pistols do not have the chamber support of others, and cases post shooting are "all over the place" size-wise. I would play pretty close attention to these factors.
Best wishes!
geo

[FergusonTO35]

These days, take whatever primers you can find! I have gone to using LP's in .45-70 and lite .30-30's and find they actually work better for these loads.

[Castaway]

Ferguson, LPP’s are shorter than LRP’s. Because of this, when detonated, the LPP has time to accelerate and slam the bolt/breech face and potentially peen the metal around the firing pin hole

[littlejack]

Castaway:
What you are referring to is a "baffle". In this particular scenario, it is a powder reservoir baffle. I worked in the sheet metal / fabrication shops for years. Years ago, I layed out and fit a baffle to my Little Dandy powder reservoir. As far as the accuracy of the powder drops, that was the main reason for switching to the HP-38 powder from the Herco. After weighing a couple dozen drops, the HP-38 weighs within 1/10 of a grain total with the Little Dandy. Yesterday, I disassembled a used Ideal/Lyman #55 measure, and cleaned really well. After adjusting to a 4.2 grain drop weight of HP-38, it dropped dozens consistently. IMO, I think the #55 measure is way under-appreciated for dropping small powder charges.
Georgerkahn:
Of the number of rounds fired (approx. 200) with the srp's, there was not any at all failure to fire. As for weighing each individual charge? I do that with some rifle loads, depending on powder, and powder shape. I don't think I would ever see a need to use that technique for loading hundreds of pistol rounds. With the consistant weight drops I'm getting, I'm very happy. As for the range brass, most shooters using said brass should check said brass for any defects before reloading.
Thank you all for your comments. Much appreciated. Anyone have preferences for their favorite 9mm powder, and why.
Regards

[Rapier]

Jack, I do not own a single 9mm any longer, but have owned several dozen. I participated in the 9mm tests at Eglin. 1. The tea cup design bullet, is not accurate enough to pass the minimum accuracy requirements. So the AF research and development unit at Eglin designed the Truncated Cone bullet on their design computers, had the build unit turn a bunch on their CNC lathes and passed the accuracy phase. Hornady agreed to make 3 million for the test, in exchange for the patent, rest is hostory. What this means is shat can the round nose and go TC, I use the 124s, because of the tests. Try Unique if you can find it. My Walker 9x19 comp gun would shoot 1/4" groups at 25.

[gwpercle]

If you can get your hands on some Accurate #2 or Accurate #5 ... both flow like water .
My favorite 9mm Luger loads with these powders :

124 gr. cast NOE 358-124-TC GC sized .357"

5.0 grains Accurate #5 @ 1009 fps

3.8 grains Accurate #2 @ 1012 fps

I haven't done enough testing to pick a pet load ... both are accurate , the Acc #2 may be a touch cleaner burning but the Acc #5 may be slightly more accurate ... I need to shoot both loads more . Both powders flow very easily through measure and are easy to scoop charges with ... never used either in 50 years of loading ...only discovered a few years ago ... but love the way they flow and work with powder scoop .
Gary

[littlejack]

Rapier:
I never saw a pistol (or revolver for that matter) ever shoot a 1/4" group @ 25 yards
That's purdy amazing, even with a Ransom rest.
Gary, I thought seriously about AA#5. Looked to be a good powder to try, being in the middle of the powder burn rate charts. Right now, here in western Oregon, powders are hard to come by. The Albany Rifle and Pistol Club had their fall gun show this last weekend in September. Powders ranged from 35.00 to 80.00 dollars a pound. Didn't find any that I was looking for. All popular powders are gone as soon as they hit the shelves around here. They just hardly ever hit the shelves. Primers are the same way. The gun club has primers for 10.00 a 100 pack. Nope, that's to rich for my wallet. That's why I've been experimenting with small rifle primers. I do have some Unique, but it's metering characteristics is as bad or worse than the Herco. So for now, I'll stick with the HP-38 untill something better shows up.

[Castaway]

For what it’s worth, the original bullet fielded for the 9x19 was a truncated cone

[littlejack]

So, today, I called the gun club to find out if they had received any CFE Pistol powder? Low and behold, they had just received a powder supply in. They had two (2) 8 pound jugs. Naturally, I headed there to pick one up. They hadn't even priced anything out yet. When I got there, the manager was cyphering with pencil in hand. He looked me in the eye and said 240.00. I must be livin right. I said I could live with that. Selling half to a friend that I'm helping get started in reloading. These opportunities don't come along to often for me, but I am very grateful when they do.

[trapper9260]

Glad to hear you found what you looking for. 8 lbs will last you sometime.

[Thunder Stick]

My accuracy load in the 9X19 is AA#5, 5.6 grains, 124 Lee TL powder coated, Rem case, CCI500 primer. This is from the Speer #8 manual.

[FergusonTO35]

3.8 grains HP-38 under any 115 to 140 grain boolit is my favorite 9mm load. I use the excellent Arsenal 359-130-RF mostly, sized to .357.

[FergusonTO35]

Ferguson, LPP’s are shorter than LRP’s. Because of this, when detonated, the LPP has time to accelerate and slam the bolt/breech face and potentially peen the metal around the firing pin hole

Thanks for the tip, will keep an eye out for that. I have fired several hundred so far and haven't observed any negative effects.

[littlejack]

Thank you all for your input. I broke open the new jug of CFE Pistol powder. Been loading up some test rounds this afternoon. Lookin forward to getting to the gun club tomorrow to try them out. I'll post an update with the results.

[Handloader109]

I've loaded up and shot a bunch of 9mm with S&B SRP. They were sold as SPP, but marked R.
But they have gone bang in all my 9mm guns from CZ Scorpion and Ruger PCC, to my glock, Walther ppq and ppx and ccp along with my 2 1911s and my Kimber. But I did have issues with my stk100 from Rock Island armory. Metal frame glock clone. But it failed on factory ammo and cci primed loads too. Returned it, and RI replaced the gun. Shot cci reloads and factory fine, but didn't like the S&B srp at all. It still was light primer strike half the time. Just replaced the oem firing pin spring with a factory glock spring. 100% fired 18 rounds of S&B primed and another 17 from each of factory and CCI reloads.
Just another point....

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

[Larry Gibson]

I posted these test results on another thread concerning the same subject about a year ago.


9mm; SP and SR primers

The last few months there have been several threads regards the use of SP magnum and/or SR primers in the 9mm cartridge. I had conducted a test of SP and SR primers in the 357 Magnum and posted the results [https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...he-357-Magnum]. In that cartridge with Unique powder there was enough evidence demonstrating the SP Magnum and SR primers could raise the psi enough to warrant caution in doing so.

However, does that correspond to the 9mm cartridge which was the subject of the question. Some definitely thought the substitution should not be made. Others were adamant that using a SP Magnum or SR primer in the 9mm with a given load posed no problem. A video showing a limited test by a commercial reloader demonstrated no different in pressure or velocity. Others stated they found little variance in chronographed velocity as proof there was no difference in psi. I proposed caution be used should it be necessary to substitute SP Magnum or SR primers in the 9mm with a given load.

I have just completed 3 additional more fairly comprehensive pressure/velocity tests of 3 different powders [Bullseye, VV 3N37 and HS-6] in the 9mm cartridge.
A commercial loader request I test the 9mm cartridge with CCI’s 500, 550 SP primers using 6.1 gr VV 3N37 under a 115 gr FMJ bullet. He supplied the powder and the bullets.
To provide a comparative reference I also loaded test rounds with the same primers using 4.9 gr Alliant Bullseye and the 115 FMJ bullets [listed as a maximum] and also included the CCI 400 SR primer and the CCI 450 SR magnum primers. Testing was done in a 10” Contender barrel with a strain gauge affixed and connected to the Oehler M43 PBL. The SAAMI MAP for the 9mm cartridge is 35,000 psi.

The test of the comparative reference load [4.9 gr Bullseye] proved quite interesting. The test results briefly;
Primer, velocity average, psi average:

CCI 500 SP primers; 1331 fps, 35,000

CCI 550 SP Magnum primers; 1341 fps, 35,000 psi

CCI 400 SR primers; 1338 fps, 35,000 psi

CCI 450 SR Magnum primers; 1330 fps, 35,000 psi

Note the test to test variation in velocity is well within the test to test expected variation of the same load. What was really surprising was the pressure for each and every shot, regardless of the primer, was exactly the same…..right at the SAAMI MAP for the 9mm cartridge. Looking at the internals [time/pressure curves, area under the curve and rise to pressure] a slight difference could be noted. The CCI 550 SP Magnum and the CCI 450 SR Magnum primers gave slightly more uniform internals than either the standard SP or SR primers!

I then conducted the second test using the provide VV 3N37 powder. The test results;

CCI 500 SP primers; 1236 fps, 32,300 psi

CCI 550 SP Magnum primers; 1253, 34,500 psi

Note, with the use of VV 3N37 powder, we have a distinct difference in results with this test than with the previous test with Bullseye. The internal ballistic measurements again indicated the CCI 550 primer gave slightly more uniform ballistics. The CCI 550 Magnum primer also gave a noted increase in velocity [20 fps increase vs the 10 fps difference with Bullseye] and an increase in pressure of 2,200 psi.

In a previous thread it was Lloyd Smale (If memory serves me correct as I couldn’t find the thread with “search”] that was adamant with is 9mm load of HS-6 in didn’t matter with his mid-level HS-6 load what primer was used as all were “safe”. He also rather adamantly suggested I test HS-6 and find out. So I did.

Lyman lists 6.2 gr HS-6 as their max load under a 120 gr 356402 bullet. I didn’t have the Lyman bullet but have the Lee 120 gr TC bullet [123 gr cast of COWW + 2% tin], so I chose to use that load. Even though Lyman lists that load as “max” the CUP measurement of 29,300 indicates it is not a “max” load as the CUP SAAMI MAP is 33,000. I have on hand 13 different SP and SR primers [7 SP primers and 6 SR primers] so I loaded up a test with each of them.

Again, the test load was 6.2 gr of Hodgdon HS-6 under the 123 gr Lee TC cast bullets.

The test results by primer used;

Small Pistol primers;

Federal 100 SP primer; 1255 fps, 34,800 psi

CCI 500 SP primer; 1227 fps, 34,700 psi

Magtech 1 ½ SP primer; 1243 fps, 35,000 psi

Winchester WSP SP primer; 1247 fps, 35,000 psi

CCI 550 SP Magnum primer; 1210 fps, 34,400 psi

Federal 200 SP Magnum primer; 1214 fps, 34,700 psi

Winchester WSPM SP Magnum primer; 1253 fps, 35,000 psi

Small Rifle primers;

Remington 7 ½ SR Primer; 1229 fps, 34,700 psi

Winchester WSR SR primer; 1220 fps, 34,800 psi

CCI 400 SR primer; 1237 fps, 34,800

Federal 200 SR primer; 1253 fps, 34,800 psi

CCI 450 SR Magnum primer; 1228 fps, 34,700 psi

Federal 205 SR Magnum primer; 1222 fps, 34,500 psi

Appears Lloyd was certainly correct, there really isn’t much difference regardless of the primer used. Also. interesting to note that 3 of the SP primers pushed the psi right to the SAAMI MAP whereas none of the SR primers did. That is one of the things I really like about this game and that is I’m always learning. In this case I’ve not only learned from actual testing but also through research to find the facts about primers. Turns out, once again, I and most others were misled over the years into thinking SP magnum primers and SR primers would increase the psi with a given load because they were “hotter” or had more explosive power. Turns out that isn’t true. The primers only hold so much compound and the energy produced by that amount of compound is finite. Thus, SP and SR primers essentially hold the same amount pf priming compound which essentially increases the same amount. SPM and SR/SRM primers apparently do not increase the psi per se by themselves. The difference is in the priming compounds and how they “burn”. The SPM and SR/SRM primers compound gives a longer flame burn is all.

So, if that is the case then why did two of the tests [the 357 Magnum with Unique and the 9mm with VV 3N37 powders] show a marked increase in psi with the SPM and/or the SR/SRM primers? The answer to that appears, at least so far, to lie in the nature of the powder used. My guess at this time is any real potential increase in pressure with the use of a SPM or SR/SRM primer will be dependent on what kind of powder is used [single or double based], the kind of deterrent [controls the burn rate] that is used and probably any flash retardant used. Thus, as it turns out, all who participated in the past thread were essentially correct some of the time and potentially wrong at other times. This is evidenced as I’ve not found any conclusive evidence one way or the other to definitively say substituting a SPM or SR/SRM primer in a 9mm load is safe because, like many things we’ve found in reloading, it depends.

I will still, as of this writing, stand by my original suggestion; if one has to substitute a SPM or SR/SRM primer in the 9mm cartridge for a load proven safe with a SP primer developed load then use caution.