Dead thread!

[44man]

I notice since I got the E mail from Federal saying they don't remember ever using a mag primer in the .44 that it died. The 150 is all they ever used as far back as they can remember.
I thought it was a recent change but I was wrong, caused by reading someone else instead of going to the source.
JWP, where are you? :bigsmyl2:
I hate to say "I told you so" but I done "told you so."

[Bwana]

I'll play. All that the "E-mail", sorry I didn't see an e-mail, said was that the 2007 catalog said that the 150 primer was used that year in the 44mag. So, what does that prove? Does it prove that the 150 was the only primer used? No. Does it prove that the 155 wasn't used? No. And I am willing to accept the factory guy's statement as fact. Why? Because they may have used a powder which didn't need a "magnum" primer.
In one of your posts you stated that the 155 was for 445, 500, and 45-70. If my memory serves me correctly the 155 primer came into existence long before the 445, 460, 500. And we all know that the 45-70 uses a large rifle primer and no reputable ballistician would say to use a pistol primer in a large rifle pocket. So, a little discrepancy there; but, no matter you probably just got carried away, it happens to the best of us.
You have still to address the use of slow, 110/296, etc., powders in the 44mag and which primer is recommended for that situation by the ballisticians. How is that? Your turn now.

[44man]

Federal uses slow ball powders in the .44. I do too and the 150 has more then enough heat.
I have used nothing but 296 since it came out and nothing but a 150 primer.
Here is the mail I got from them if you have not gone to the other post. I have to copy and paste it.
James, I don't know that we ever used anything other than the 150 primer in the 44 mag. Without going too far back I checked the 2007 catalog on my desk and it was used at least that far back. Hope this helps. Thanks
It only means they have nothing back farther then 2007 handy. It means the 150 has been used since.
I can tell you for a fact that Fed does not use 2400, I have pulled many bullets to find ball powder that appears to be 296 or H110.
If you want to know the powder, go to Fed yourself. Since powders sent to ammo makers that have pressure test equipment is not the same as canister powders---good luck.
You are lacking something because the LP mag CAN be shot in any caliber like the 45-70 or .475 that has a LR pocket.
The .500 S&W has had two pockets cut, one for LR and another for LP. Mix them up with primers and eat steel!

[Bwana]

Federal uses slow ball powders in the .44. I do too and the 150 has more then enough heat.
I have used nothing but 296 since it came out and nothing but a 150 primer.
Here is the mail I got from them if you have not gone to the other post. I have to copy and paste it.
James, I don't know that we ever used anything other than the 150 primer in the 44 mag. Without going too far back I checked the 2007 catalog on my desk and it was used at least that far back. Hope this helps. Thanks
It only means they have nothing back farther then 2007 handy. It means the 150 has been used since.
I can tell you for a fact that Fed does not use 2400, I have pulled many bullets to find ball powder that appears to be 296 or H110.
If you want to know the powder, go to Fed yourself. Since powders sent to ammo makers that have pressure test equipment is not the same as canister powders---good luck.
You are lacking something because the LP mag CAN be shot in any caliber like the 45-70 or .475 that has a LR pocket.
The .500 S&W has had two pockets cut, one for LR and another for LP. Mix them up with primers and eat steel!

Reading comprehension; I am so glad it was held up as being very important in my formative years. It makes things so much easier. As far as which powder Federal uses in their 44Mag loads, it is you who is trying to make a point and therefore it is incumbant on you to lay out the facts pertinant to your case, not me or anyone else. Obviously you failed to remember the HOOHAW made of my use primers in non-specific primer pockets. That's ok, it happens to the best of us

[44man]

Reading comprehension; I am so glad it was held up as being very important in my formative years. It makes things so much easier. As far as which powder Federal uses in their 44Mag loads, it is you who is trying to make a point and therefore it is incumbant on you to lay out the facts pertinant to your case, not me or anyone else. Obviously you failed to remember the HOOHAW made of my use primers in non-specific primer pockets. That's ok, it happens to the best of us
I do follow you with more primer pressure then is safe or accurate.
Anyone with sense will not follow you. You attribute danger is OK for loading ammo. I will never, ever, ever go your way.
You see, the fellas here are friends, not test subjects.

[Bwana]

"I do follow you with more primer pressure then is safe or accurate.
Anyone with sense will not follow you. You attribute danger is OK for loading ammo. I will never, ever, ever go your way.
You see, the fellas here are friends, not test subjects."

Talk about "sense", I'm still trying to make sense of this post, quoted above. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you really meant to say. Maybe it's just me.

[jwp475]

No, not just you Bwana....

[MaxEnergy]

i am equally confused

[44man]

Confused would be to use LR mag primers in a .44 and say it is OK.

[white eagle]

Federal ammo isn't that good anyway

[Matthew 25]

Bwana, do you have to start a fight every time you post?

[Bwana]

Bwana, do you have to start a fight every time you post?

Let me see now, do I have to start a fight everytime I post. Well you seem to be saying that that's what I do. I am going to have to say that you are either being sarcastic, or you are looking for a fight. So, which one is it? Let me know so I'll know how to proceed.

[waksupi]

Need to lock another thread already?

[Lloyd Smale]

easy to cure this. 44man just forward me the email at lws43@hotmail.com and ill get back to federal and verify it and post what i here back here again.

[44man]

easy to cure this. 44man just forward me the email at lws43@hotmail.com and ill get back to federal and verify it and post what i here back here again.
Link took me to outlook express so I will try AOL.

[IllinoisCoyoteHunter]

FWIW, I have used a BUNCH of 296 in 357, 44, 454, and 500 mag and have NEVER used a mag primer in any of them. Never. I have also NEVER had an ignition problem or squib loads. Chrony shows consistent velocities too. I just make sure I have high load density.

[44man]

Mail sent.
I will not show what else I have learned as it would be a dis-service to the ammo maker.

[jwp475]

Mail sent.
I will not show what else I have learned as it would be a dis-service to the ammo maker.



Is this secret code talk for "I don't have anything to show"

[MaxEnergy]

Mail sent.
I will not show what else I have learned as it would be a dis-service to the ammo maker.

are you an investigative journalist now?

[Lloyd Smale]

jim, what you sent me was not a forward of an original email it was just an email from your address. What id like to see is the original email and email address so it can be confirmed.
Mail sent.
I will not show what else I have learned as it would be a dis-service to the ammo maker.

[Lloyd Smale]

this was all i got, no name or return email address that could possibly confirm anything. Bottom line is i really dont care anyway. I could give a rats @@@ what federal or for that matter anyone else uses. Ive seen over my own chronograph, shooting my own guns over 30 years what works and what doesnt at least for me and I challange anyone here to take a 44 mag with a 250 grain cast bullet and load 5 rounds at 18 grains of 110 and work up to 25 grains in half grain increments using cci std and cci mag primers and report back as to what there deviation is. I dont need any pictures. Pictures like anything else on the internet are to easy to fake. I can shoot groups at 25 yards and claim i shot them at a 100 and shoot crapy groups on paper to prove a point. Only way to really legitimately do it would be to have say 3 people from this fourm that are trusted witness the whole test and that includes my test too. I know theres good people here but i know many are bullheaded and sure would go to extreams to insure there opinion looked like the correct one. If nothing else the mind tends to forget the good groups shot with a combination you really dont believe in. Personaly i tire of the show me a picture of your group ****. Either take me as honest or dont, thats up to you. But a picture on the internet sure doesnt mean squat to me. Jim i know your a good shot, probably a better shot then me and i respect your opinion on most things but like many of us you are a bullheaded sob and dont like to admit when your wrong. A couple things we will never agree on are the use of mag primers with 110, 296, wc820 and aa9 and the quality of FA guns. Like many else on here its not my first rodeo and ive seen both of those opinions of yours proven wrong many more times then proven right.


James,

I don't know that we ever used anything other than the 150 primer in the 44 mag.
Without going too far back I checked the 2007 catalog on my desk and it was used
at least that far back. Hope this helps.

Thanks



jameswbrm@aol.com

[44man]

easy to cure this. 44man just forward me the email at lws43@hotmail.com and ill get back to federal and verify it and post what i here back here again.
I see no reason to prove things to those that object anyway. It only shows the skill level is far behind knowing the revolver.
It has never been the shooter either, just what is done at the loading bench to help make him shoot better. If a guy goes from 10" to 6" at 50 yards, I feel good for him. I just hope I helped in some way and I know you would too.

[44man]

this was all i got, no name or return email address that could possibly confirm anything.


James,

I don't know that we ever used anything other than the 150 primer in the 44 mag.
Without going too far back I checked the 2007 catalog on my desk and it was used
at least that far back. Hope this helps.

Thanks



jameswbrm@aol.com
I went to the Federal site and the (contact us) part.

[jwp475]

jim, what you sent me was not a forward of an original email it was just an email from your address. What id like to see is the original email and email address so it can be confirmed.



Exactly... What was the question and what was the reply. That is the only way to interpret correctly

[44MAG#1]

I don't understand who really cares?
People have used Mag Primers for years.
Doesn't mean it is right or wrong and many have gotten splendid results too with both.
I have used both. I like both. Use what you want.
Again who cares what the factories use?
Unless we can duplicate EXACTLY what the factorys use in the whole equation again who care about just one item?

[jwp475]

this was all i got, no name or return email address that could possibly confirm anything. Bottom line is i really dont care anyway. I could give a rats @@@ what federal or for that matter anyone else uses. Ive seen over my own chronograph, shooting my own guns over 30 years what works and what doesnt at least for me and I challange anyone here to take a 44 mag with a 250 grain cast bullet and load 5 rounds at 18 grains of 110 and work up to 25 grains in half grain increments using cci std and cci mag primers and report back as to what there deviation is. I dont need any pictures. Pictures like anything else on the internet are to easy to fake. I can shoot groups at 25 yards and claim i shot them at a 100 and shoot crapy groups on paper to prove a point. Only way to really legitimately do it would be to have say 3 people from this fourm that are trusted witness the whole test and that includes my test too. I know theres good people here but i know many are bullheaded and sure would go to extreams to insure there opinion looked like the correct one. If nothing else the mind tends to forget the good groups shot with a combination you really dont believe in. Personaly i tire of the show me a picture of your group ****. Either take me as honest or dont, thats up to you. But a picture on the internet sure doesnt mean squat to me. Jim i know your a good shot, probably a better shot then me and i respect your opinion on most things but like many of us you are a bullheaded sob and dont like to admit when your wrong. A couple things we will never agree on are the use of mag primers with 110, 296, wc820 and aa9 and the quality of FA guns. Like many else on here its not my first rodeo and ive seen both of those opinions of yours proven wrong many more times then proven right.


James,

I don't know that we ever used anything other than the 150 primer in the 44 mag.
Without going too far back I checked the 2007 catalog on my desk and it was used
at least that far back. Hope this helps.

Thanks



jameswbrm@aol.com


+1........ you are spot on

[44man]

Exactly... What was the question and what was the reply. That is the only way to interpret correctly
Why don't you do what I did, go to the source? You do not believe because it will prove you wrong.
You do nothing but go downhill trying to prove false things.
I have a lot of other info I will not post because it is wrong to do against ammo makers, unlike the extreme poor quality control of some gun makers.
You are so far out or your league with personal convictions and no proof you belittle yourself. Admit you are after me even if you are wrong!
You dispute actual E mail from Federal like I changed it, what is wrong with you? Does it destroy your ego?
I don't know that we ever used anything other than the 150 primer in the 44 mag. Without going too far back I checked the 2007 catalog on my desk and it was used at least that far back. Hope this helps. Thanks Federal Premium -----Original Message----- From: jameswbrm@aol.com [mailto:jameswbrm@aol.com (jameswbrm@aol.com?)] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 2:47 PM To: Anoka Prodserv Subject: Federal Premium - Ask the Expert Form James Miner jameswbrm@aol.com 379 Cherry Run Rd Harpers Ferry West Virginia 25425 USA I have used fed primers and loads forever and found the 150 primer is the best for all loads in the .44 magnum. Heat without pressure. I heard you now use them in your factory loads and I do find them more accurate. Is it true you went to the 150 primer?
Here is the whole thing so you can go crazy disputing it.

[jwp475]

Why don't you do what I did, go to the source? You do not believe because it will prove you wrong.
You do nothing but go downhill trying to prove false things.
I have a lot of other info I will not post because it is wrong to do against ammo makers, unlike the extreme poor quality control of some gun makers.
You are so far out or your league with personal convictions and no proof you belittle yourself. Admit you are after me even if you are wrong!
You dispute actual E mail from Federal like I changed it, what is wrong with you? Does it destroy your ego?
I don't know that we ever used anything other than the 150 primer in the 44 mag. Without going too far back I checked the 2007 catalog on my desk and it was used at least that far back. Hope this helps. Thanks Federal Premium -----Original Message----- From: jameswbrm@aol.com [mailto:jameswbrm@aol.com (jameswbrm@aol.com?)] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 2:47 PM To: Anoka Prodserv Subject: Federal Premium - Ask the Expert Form James Miner jameswbrm@aol.com 379 Cherry Run Rd Harpers Ferry West Virginia 25425 USA I have used fed primers and loads forever and found the 150 primer is the best for all loads in the .44 magnum. Heat without pressure. I heard you now use them in your factory loads and I do find them more accurate. Is it true you went to the 150 primer?
Here is the whole thing so you can go crazy disputing it.




Is this more secret code talk for "I don't have anything to show"

[white eagle]

Federal ammo isn't that good anyway
+1[smilie=p:

[Mooseman]

Time to lock this Bickering Thread down...You guys are being Counterproductive !
Rich