2400, standard pistol primers, and below freezing temps

[Love Life]

deleted

[Little Big Oz]

I just had a similar experience switching from Winchester Large Pistol primers to CCI 300s with 2400 in 44 Mag. Groups tightened up and velocities were more uniform. Wish I had tried that months ago.

[emrah]

I use 2400 in my 30-30 loads with a standard large rifle primer. I know it's not handgun, and the large pistol primer is, well, larger, so there is more spark, but I've never had a miss or delayed fire.

Emrah

[35remington]

I've loaded 2400 to pressures well below half of what you're obtaining in 357 with cast bullets in a 25-20, using small pistol primers, and have obtained good results in the cold.

Ignition was reliable at temps down in the single digits on a number of hunting trips. A load generating 1300 to 1450 fps with an 85 grain bullet is my standard for most small game hunting, and it's been well tested in very cold temperatures many times. Pressures are likely in the 14,000 to 17,000 psi range at such velocities.

If it works just fine in cold temps at these low pressures, 35,000 psi 357 and 44 loads ought to be a cinch.

[9.3X62AL]

I wonder if condesation could ever be a problem. Like putting your pants on in the morning and your body heat causing the rounds to sweat. Hmmm. Time to do some more experimenting.

I would bet against it, LL. Where you and I live is ALWAYS low in humidity, except possibly during a microburst or monsoonal storm in summertime.

[Iron Mike Golf]

I wouldn't worry about condensation inside the case either. Not much air in there. Not enough water carried by the air.

[44man]

Isn't it funny that I only use a standard primer in the .44 mag and .45 Colt with 296? Shot that at below zero too.
2400 does not need a mag primer. almost nothing needs a mag primer until the case gets large like the .475 to the .500 S&W. But some powders will still not need a mag primer.
I still read gun rags that say a mag primer is needed in the .44, etc with H10 and 296.
I did read something in Handloader recently that started to make sense about primers. I think they read my posts! :drinks:

[Larry Gibson]

44man

I have always used magnum primers in the .357, 41 and 44 Magnums with H110 or 296. I have velocity and pressure tested them every way from Sunday against standard primers and I can discern no difference between the two when things go right. However, when things go wrong they can be very wrong indeed. I've had two loads (one 357 with a 170 gr 358429 and one with the 44 with a 250 gr 429421) fail to ignite the powder.

The bullet in each instance was driven far enough into the forcing cone/barrel that the revolvers could, and were, coked to fire another round. The 1st time it happened with me with my .44. I hadn't got the "load one, skip a chamber, load four more" routine down and thought I'd just messed that up. As I was lining the sights up though a little voice in the back of my head said I'd better look to see what really happened......fortunately I did that. I had another full load of 23 gr of h110 behind another 429421 lined up to follow that stuck bullet. The CCI 300s may or may not have ignited that round but i really didn't want to find out.

The second time I was shooting with a friend who had a very nice old model BH 357. He was shooting full house loads of 296 under his 358429s. Things were going very well with the loads being accurate when ignited with regular SP primers (Remingtons if I remember right). Then on one shot the hammer fel....clunk but no bang. He looked puzzled at the revolver, shrugged and thumbed the hammer back to fire again. I reached over and grabbed the revolver with the hammer falling on my thumb. He said "what the f**K" and was very pissed until I pulled the cylinder and the unburned powder rolled out. He went pale when he saw the bullet stuck in the forcing cone. That was lesson enough for me and since those experiences long ago I've not used a standard primer with H110 or 296 since. I've heard numerous instances of the same thing happening to others..........

Now with 2400, I've tested it also about every way from Sunday and can't find much difference psi or velocity wise between standard and magnum primers. The time pressure curves are almost identical. I've not found much of any accuracy difference either but then I can't shoot a handgun as well as I used to, or as good as you do.

If the weather ever breaks here in the PNW I'll test those H110 and 2400 44 Magnum loads with various LR and LP primers. My control loads use magnum primers for the H110 and standard for the 2400. Might show us something with that test.

Larry Gibson

[pdawg_shooter]

I have use 2400 with std primers in 44 and 357s since I started loading for them back in the 60s. Never have had a problem. Hot, cold, or anywhere in between. I think 2400 is one of the greatest powders ever.

[MtGun44]

Elmer warned that mag primer with 2400 or Unique will cause fliers. I have verified it, once
again, I learned something from his books. Another shooter learns that a magnum case
does not necessarily require a magnum primer. I use mostly CCI-300s in lg pistols.

Bill

[9.3X62AL]

I haven't used very much WW-296 or H-110 for several years, so my consumption of magnum primers isn't extensive. I've not had squibs or other ignition misadventures with these two fuels, but always have used the magnum primers with them. When a powder maker gives a recommendation of that sort, I figure they have a good reason for it. I don't begrudge anyone some experimentation, just be cautious and fully aware that you are "off the reservation" when doing so.

[44man]

Long ago, 1956 to be exact I used mag primers in the .44. It was not until accuracy testing for IHMSA that I decided on the Fed 150.
Since then this SBH has over 62,000 heavy rounds through it with everything from 240 gr bullets to 330 gr boolits, all with 296. Not once has a bullet of any kind failed to go to the sights, hit or miss. Add in the thousands shot with other .44's, SRH, SBH Hunters, etc with never a failure, I will not look at anything that opens groups.
I will contend that anytime a .44 fails to light and shoves out a boolit it is from a lack of case tension with an over pressure primer.
Now if I still owned a .357 I might use a SP mag with 296, the primer might be weak enough with fire to work fine.
I have tested other cases with the Fed 150, .454, .475 and even a few .500's without a failure but accuracy was a 180* reversal of the .44. So I use a LP mag in the larger cases. Fed 155.
From what I understand, Fed has switched to the 150 for their factory .44 loads.
I have some fine DT .44 ammo here loaded with mag primers but the best I can do at 50 yards is 3-1/4" with some at 4" while my loads will cut 1/2".
I looked at my old book for chrono readings of the 320 LBT and see my load has an SD of 11.5, ES of 29 fps and an MAD of 9.9 fps. Adding 1/2 gr more powder reduces those figures but groups open. I don't have readings for my 330 gr but they will hold 1-1/4" at 100 yards. That is the boolit that shot a 1-5/16" group at 200 yards.
I use the 155 in my 45-70 BFR with 4759 but I dare not reduce the loads or I will stuff the barrel with powder behind a boolit. The 150 will ignite the right charge but groups suffer. LR primers make groups too large. It is like between a rock and a hard place.
I have tested the CCI 300 and see no difference in the .44 or .45 Colt. Good primer. The WLP will open groups a little. It is a good primer too.
The .454 was one that gave me hell. I could not reduce any 296 load with any SR mag primer. I have a brass rod in my bag with a little hammer to clear the guns. ONLY max loads or a little over were reliable. Using cut down .460 brass or opening pockets showed a Fed 150 would ignite every load but groups were not good. The 155 brought the guns with 296 into it's own. If you use other powders the SR mag is fine.
If you want groups, do not rely on pressure tests or chrono readings. Rely on what you see at the target.

[fecmech]

I realize this thread is about 2400 but it has taken a turn to 296 so just a couple comments:

I can't speak to the pros and cons of primers in the .44mag as I always had and used Fed LP's with 296, but I never had a problem 1 in a number of 8 lb kegs used.

In the .357 with 296 and 820( with 358429) I get very much better accuracy and ballistic uniformity with CCI small rifle primers over Federal SP primers. There is very little velocity difference if any and ballistics aren't bad with the Fed SP but the CCI SR primer gives single digit SD's and about half the ES of the Fed SP. Accuracy at 50 yds with the Fed Sp's averages 3+" while the CCI's average 2" or less. There is a noticeable accuacy difference in my .357 rifles also but not as much as the pistol.

[44man]

I realize this thread is about 2400 but it has taken a turn to 296 so just a couple comments:

I can't speak to the pros and cons of primers in the .44mag as I always had and used Fed LP's with 296, but I never had a problem 1 in a number of 8 lb kegs used.

In the .357 with 296 and 820( with 358429) I get very much better accuracy and ballistic uniformity with CCI small rifle primers over Federal SP primers. There is very little velocity difference if any and ballistics aren't bad with the Fed SP but the CCI SR primer gives single digit SD's and about half the ES of the Fed SP. Accuracy at 50 yds with the Fed Sp's averages 3+" while the CCI's average 2" or less. There is a noticeable accuacy difference in my .357 rifles also but not as much as the pistol.
Interesting to say the least. I do not have a .357 but it would be something to look at.
I just wish more guys would pay attention to primers.

[dla]

I'm not sure why anyone would use a magnum primer with a flake powder like 2400. I didn't realize 357Mag load data called for a mag primer with 2400. But if you want the lowest ES with 44mag and H110/W296, use mag primers. I've chrono'd this a bunch and there is a big difference between mag and standard primers with 44mag when using those ball powders.

[fecmech]

I'm not sure why anyone would use a magnum primer with a flake powder like 2400.

The original use for 2400 was as a fast rifle powder in cases like .22 Hornet,218 bee etc and they used small rifle primers which are essentially what small pistol mag primers are, I believe.

PS--I'm not advocating mag primers for 2400 in .357, just pointing out some history.

[Reload3006]

I have to confess that I have never I repeat Never used a magnum primer I load 44 and 357 mag with H110/WW296 2400 and 4227 never in 30+ years had a problem

[44man]

The reloading manual I use called for them. I believe Lyman number 49.
Don't believe what you read. I switched from a mag primer in the early 80's when I shot IHMSA with my SBH. Nobody ever beat me with a revolver, too many 40's to count and 79 out of 80 at state. The last ram miss was my fault. I use nothing but 296.
It is how you load, what you load and case tension. Mag primers might show better with the chrono but they triple my groups with thousands of tests. They will never, never, ever grace my .44 loads! :kidding:
Now really, can you do this with a mag primer? 3/4" at 50 and 1-1/4" at 100. I hit the rail so I aimed higher for the last shot. RD 265 gr boolit from my old SBH. Did you know the SRH is MORE ACCURATE and will do 1/2" at 50 and can hit pop cans at 200 yards? I can not get near this with a mag primer and if you can I will shake your hand!
Then a group at 200 yards to measure drop. Right target, 1-5/16".

[cbrick]

In the .357 with 296 and 820( with 358429) I get very much better accuracy and ballistic uniformity with CCI small rifle primers over Federal SP primers. There is very little velocity difference if any and ballistics aren't bad with the Fed SP but the CCI SR primer gives single digit SD's and about half the ES of the Fed SP. Accuracy at 50 yds with the Fed Sp's averages 3+" while the CCI's average 2" or less.


Interesting to say the least. I do not have a .357 but it would be something to look at. I just wish more guys would pay attention to primers.

My experience in the 357 also. Switching from standard small pistol to CCI 550 using H-110 made a huge difference in my 357 revolver in groups, chrono numbers and a touch higher velocity.

I haven't done much primer testing in the 44m but 44man has and if I were to start load development again with these revolvers I would no doubt heed his advice.

In the 45 Colt I did test several primers and am pretty much stuck with standard large pistol, haven't burned much 296 or H-110 here though. Been trying to use up the Lil'Gun (about the same burn rate), don't know what I'll try next in the Colt.

Primers and cold weather? Never noticed much difference but I sure do hate it when the temp drops down into the 50's. [smilie=1:

Rick

[Tom W.]

That's nice to hear... I haven't used mag sp primers in years, and seldom use mag lp primers, altho I have some and am using them on a whim, mostly to get rid of them.

[bearcove]

Lived in Alaska for a while and never had a problem with misfires. If it bothers you carry in a shoulder holster under a coat.

I have wondered about metal being more brittle at -40f but never had anything come apart.

[44man]

Lived in Alaska for a while and never had a problem with misfires. If it bothers you carry in a shoulder holster under a coat.

I have wondered about metal being more brittle at -40f but never had anything come apart.
At -40, I am brittle, never mind the gun! :holysheep

[Mohillbilly]

I remember a time Winchester only made standard primers . Other brands did but Win. was one of the last to make mag primers for rifle and pistol . I used them and 296 in , .357 magunum , .44 magnum , .45 Colt .45 Winchester magnum and even 454 Casull . I never had a problem . Also remember those winter loads you worked up may well disassembal your piece when shot on the forth of July in the 110 degree heat .

[98Redline]

I have been following this thread with great interest, especially the part about the std vs. mag primers.

Today I played hookey from work and got to do some reloading and get in some range time. I took my normal load (.44 mag, 21.5gr H-110, CCI350) and substitued a Federal 150 LPP in it's place.

From a function standpoint, every round went bang so nothing suprising there, however my groups did shrink by about 30%. I didn't have anything to measure quantitatively but more of a "calibrated eye" measurement.

[44man]

All of you seen what my revolver does with the Fed 150 primer.
I have been working some with a well known factory load, cast, that uses a mag primer.
This is the best I have done with them at 50 yards. Two good shooters.

[44man]

I have had no failures to fire using a standard primer in the .454, .475 and a few .500's HOWEVER, for accuracy in the large brass, you NEED the mag primer.
I have no idea at what point a LR primer will be needed but I understand the .500 S&W will work with a LP mag primer. There is brass made for the LP and the LR, MAKE SURE YOU NEVER PUT A LR PRIMER IN THE WRONG BRASS! A round can slam fire out of line with the bore and take the gun apart.
This is not funny! Make sure every single piece of .500 S&W brass has the proper primer pocket depth before ever putting LR primers in.
In any case I do not think a .500 S&W needs a rifle primer but that is for someone that owns one to test.
I have no use for one, it is just over board. I really laugh at those that want a 4" barrel in a .500! :kidding:

[cbrick]

Now that I don't get the random flyers anymore I can focus on my long range shooting more. I am getting way better groups, but I am also having horizontal stringing. I'm guessing the horizontal stringing is my shooting. What am I doing that would cause that?

Very possibly grip. A revolver is extremely grip sensitive due to a slow lock time and even slower barrel time. Properly sight in a revolver at say 100 yards, for the next shot tighten your grip and the shot will be quite low, loosen up on the grip on the next shot and the shot is way high. That's all it takes is inconsistent grip and it takes very little inconsistency with grip to make huge differences in point of impact vs point of aim.

Rick

[thegreatdane]

Thank you Cbrick. That was kind of what I figured, but I wasn't sure. I am really enjoying the 357 much more now that I have switched to standard small pistol primers. Now I don't have to worry if my next shot is going to be that odd flyer, and I can truly start to work on the basics. It's kind of hard to enjoy shooting for groups when the smallest you can get is 3 inches at 25 yeards because of a flyer.

dry fire, dry fire, dry fire while watching the front sight. that exercise reveals and fixes most bad habits.

[44man]

Remember torque too. If you change your grip the gun will twist different from the boolit entering the twist and trying to turn the gun. That can cause horizontal stringing.
You can also move sideways by your trigger finger pushing the frame. Make sure just the pad on your finger is only touching the trigger and the rest is away from the frame.

[Char-Gar]

Good post that illustrates a point.

1. When something new comes along, it just must be better than the old and the bandwagon gets loaded real fast.

2. Stick the word "Magnum" on a product and sales will increase.

There is a very small niche in handgun reloading for the magnum primers and that is with the hard to ignite ball powders. Outside of that need, magnum primers are not needed and often a determent.

[fecmech]

Hard to beat the Ultradot sights.

[98Redline]

Hard to beat the Ultradot sights.

+1

Match dot or Ultradot 4

[atr]

I use mag primers with .357 loads and 2400 powder....it does burn cleaner...I reduce the charge by 5% when using mag primers ...never had a problem
I am not a pure "target" shooter.....shooting off-hand with iron sights (and marginal eyes) my idea of accuracy is to keep all the rounds within a pie tin at 40 yards...I figure thats about the chest area of average man.
I have not noticed flyers due to my loads.....for me flyers are caused by my own inability to hold steady.

[1Shirt]

Think it would be wise for all revolver shooters to read larry Gibsons acoount of what might have been a certastermess and probably a serious injury, and definately a ruined weapon. I pay attention to Larry and to 44Man regarding anything to do with revolvers.
1Shirt!:coffeecom

[44man]

Now the .357----I had a few and I did use a mag primer in them. The SP mag is not as harsh as the LP mag, not as much pressure. I no longer have a .357 to test primers.
I have to mention RCBS dies as they made the worst .44 loads for me. The expanders are too long and open brass too deep. Most are too large for proper case tension. But the expander can be fixed.
I don't know about newer die sets from them but they did fix the .45 Colt expander at one time because a gun writer complained to them.
They were why I had BR dies with collars made for the .44 to cure the problem. Then I found Hornady New Dimension dies also made good loads with more even tension. I also like the seaters because they support the boolit straight.
Once case tension is even I found no difference in how they are crimped. I either use the one in the seat die and I do seat and crimp in one operation or I use a Redding profile die if the boolit will fit in it.
I have tested .44 by shooting single shot with no crimp all the way to a full profile and seen no big differences because tension is first.
There are dies I will not take a chance on because I have no clue how they work without spending money. I love Redding dies for rifles but never tried the revolver dies.
Everyone here knows I hate brand new brass with the uneven tension and prefer work hardened stuff shot for a while, it evens the grain structure.
Now listen to this. I have loaded a pile of .454 test loads with a mild crimp and no problems. Then Whitworth brought over some cast factory loads and I asked him why the super hard crimp. They looked like factory jacketed loads. I don't think we ever shot a full cylinder with out a boolit pulling and locking the gun up.
Was it the new brass???? Or poor expander? Accuracy was not good either. Case capacity was changing as boolits moved.