Primers backing out [Archive]

jeff100

10-26-2017, 03:03 PM

At the range this week I was testing loads in my .45 Colt SAA clone (Uberti). Shooting cast 452-255 RF powder coated ahead of 6.5 grains of Unique (starting load). CCI 300 primers in new Starline cases. I shot 9 rounds and the cylinder started jamming up on the second cylinder. Inspection showed primers backing out in shot cases, that is why the cylinder is trying to jam up. In 30+ years of hand loading my own ammunition, I've never had primers back out before. The loads did seem a little snappy but I didn't experience 44 mag type of recoil at all. I've never hand loaded the .45 Colt cartridge before, most of my big bore revolvers are .44 mag. My load of 6.5 grains of Unique for a 255 grain cast bullet is my starting load going up to 8.0 grains at the other end of the spectrum. Seems like I'm going to have to disassemble those loads now. I am really surprised by this and I'm curious if anyone has had a similar experience in this cartridge. This load was intended to be a target load, easy shooting. Maybe I need to go to a faster powder for this cartridge. I have Bullseye, Red Dot, 700X, Green Dot and AA#5 on hand I could switch to. To repeat, using NEW cartridge cases Starline headstamp and CCI#300 primers. Thanks all...JJ

rancher1913

10-26-2017, 03:48 PM

may or may not be the case but if the hole in the brass that the primer fires through gets clogged or fouled the primers will back out. when shooting the rubber bullets powered by primers alone I have to drill the flash hole bigger or the primers back out.

Char-Gar

10-26-2017, 03:54 PM

There is always some space between the back of the case and the recoil shield of the revolver. Without this space, rotating the loaded cylinder would be difficult. Primers back out to fill this space and the case comes back and reseats the primer. If the load is to light to reseat the primer, they continue to be out of the case a smidge.

If it bothers you, raise the powder charge until the issue goes away.

ReloaderFred

10-26-2017, 04:11 PM

Char-Gar hit the nail on the head. The pressure from the burning powder pushes the case back to the recoil shield and reseats the primer. If there isn't enough pressure, then it can't do the job.

I would go to a faster powder for this purpose, though I use a lot of TrailBoss in the .45 Colt, under 200 gr. RNFP bullets. It works in both revolvers and rifles, and it is a faster powder..

Hope this helps.

Fred

jeff100

10-26-2017, 04:35 PM

I just never would have thought the load was too light, even though it is a light load. Also I never would have considered the primer flash hole being a constraint for the primer charge, nor would I have realized that in the normal course of firing a cartridge the primers initially back out and then reseat themselves. None of these things would have come to mind.

This is what I love about reloading ammunition. No matter how long you've been at it, there's more to learn. Maybe I'll open up that flash hole a bit in the brass. I'll also go ahead and shoot my hotter loads and see if this problem solves itself. I think I'll also go ahead and use a faster powder too since these are intended to be plinker loads. Thanks everyone. JJ

M-Tecs

10-26-2017, 04:41 PM

If you have doubts fire a primed empty case.

ReloaderFred

10-26-2017, 06:02 PM

Don't open up the flash hole on the brass. I was just reading a warning from Starline earlier today about not using their blank brass for regular loads, due to the primer overcharging the powder. The larger flash hole allows pressure to release from the primer pocket, which is fine with black powder blanks, where there's no bullet.

Here is what they said in the article, "Why Guns Blow Up Part I":

Starline makes cases for blanks with oversize flash holes for the 45 Colt and the 5 in 1. It allows more flame to go through the flash hole properly igniting the black powder. As long as black powder is used, there is no problem. However, if a heavy load of smokeless powder is used, a destroyed gun can be the result. They are clearly marked as blanks on the case head, so pay attention when loading your brass. You can look at the flash holes and see the difference. There are a few brave and foolish folks who drill out the flash holes with the belief that you will have better info. Don’t!! Professionals who use sophisticated equipment to establish the specs set the flash holes and changing them can be dangerous.

Hope this helps.

Fred

Landy88

10-26-2017, 07:48 PM

Drilling flash holes should be, only, your last resort to get very reduced loads to work and those cases must only ever used for such reduced loads.

I resorted to it only in full sized rifle cartridges and doubt that it's ever needed in straight walled handgun rounds.

Went2kck

10-26-2017, 08:08 PM

Good information to know. Thanks!!!

jeff100

10-27-2017, 02:27 PM

lefty o

10-27-2017, 03:13 PM

absolutely do not drill out the flash hole. bump your load up a bit.

JBinMN

10-27-2017, 03:33 PM

In a recent topic, someone mentioned drilling flash holes & removing/using dacron fillers. I do not remember who it was that said it, but some folks are doing this with non blank rounds for some reason or the other.

I think they are doing it to try to get all of the powder to burn in a case where there is not a lot of powder so they have been using dacron as a filler to keep the powder close to the primer & have not been having satisfactory results, or something like that... Apparently someone mentioned removing the dacrom & opening up the flash hole or something along those lines...

Another reason to do "due diligence" in research & verify sources, before actually doing something you have not had experience in doing. This topic is basically 180 degrees from the discussion in that other topic it seems to me , anyway..

If I can find it I will post there & direct them to this one, as well as posting it here for others to see what I am posting about...

Here is the other topic: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?345661-A-doubt-about-reduced-load

I am not pointing this out to create any hassles, only to try to get clarification for myself & any others who may read about doing it to try an accomplish one thing & then not read about not doing it because it could cause a safety issue...

6bg6ga

10-27-2017, 04:16 PM

I have shot minimum loads and even loads under minimum with no primers backing out.

Char-Gar

10-27-2017, 04:35 PM

Jeff100 et al.....Please be careful friends, there is so much misinformation on various reloading boards and some of it can be dangerous.

The notion of drilling out/enlarging flash holes started in the distance past. Folks had the idea that with super low pressure loads in bottle neck rifle cases, the pressure was not enough to blow the case should forward to fill the headspace. The theory was that repeated firing of this case, the firing pin blow, would beat the case shoulder against the chamber shoulder, setting the case shoulder back. Over time, this would increase the headspace to the danger point, at least that was the theory.

The reality was different from the theory, as repeated firings of gallery loads, did not batter the case shoulder back to form dangerous headspace. Enlarged flash holes did not present any kind of danger at this pressure level, but full charge loads did.

These low pressure gallery loads, did not produce enough rear thrust on the case head to reseat the primers, so these low pressure loads did produce the backed out primers like you experienced. somebody got confused and thought enlarging flash holes was the fix for this, which it is not.

The Internet is a wonderful thing, the Information Super Highway it used to be called. What took hours or even days to dig out of a library is just a few key strokes away. But all of this information comes with a price, which is a great mass of bad information. Anybody with a computer becomes and expert spews forth great amounts of info, most is harmless, but some can get you killed or injured.

Touching off burning gases, under thousands of pounds of pressure, in a little brass bottle next to your body is not something to be taken lightly. In doing so, the Internet should never be your primary source for doing it safely. Boys, never repeat something you read or heard on the net that you have never done. If you haven't done it, don't write about it. Stay safe y'all!

JBinMN

10-27-2017, 04:38 PM

I have shot minimum loads and even loads under minimum with no primers backing out.

Ditto.

And that is why I follow some of these topics. Things that happen to others & I have not experienced the same thing. Just to learn more.

It doesn't hurt to learn more from others , IMO, as long as what ya learn is correct. When I see conflicting ideas being brought forth, (as that is what appears to be happening between the two topics), clarification is pretty important if there is a possibility of damage to the firearm or the person. And in a situation like this, even though I have NOT had primers back out in revolvers or semi auto, I want to know about it in case it ever does happen. And I want the correct information, or at least why it happens to be OK sometimes & not OK other times, if both are possible to be OK.

I am very interested, but at the same time a bit confused about how there could be two different views on this...
:???:

Hopefully someone will explain, either here or there...

M-Tecs

10-27-2017, 04:52 PM

DiHopefully someone will explain, either here or there...

All primers back out when fired. The case movement reseats them. If the case doesn't have enough pressure to reseat them it can be a problem. Two tests to prove it. Fire a primed empty case in a revolver and see what happens. Second test is to note the primer depth on any of your loads. Fire them and check to see how many are still below flush.

JBinMN

10-27-2017, 05:10 PM

Thanks M-Tecs, but I understood that part. I have fired primer only & have inspected & seen how they are not the .003 -005 they are when installed, but forced out a bit from the expansion of firing the powder inside the primer.

It is the opening up of the primer flash hole part that has me confused.

In this topic, folks are saying ( including the quote from Starline that was presented), that folks should not open up flash holes . Or only if there is no projectile/using blank rounds.

While in the other topic, there are folks saying that opening the flash holes of the primers can aid in solving a problem. Thus my confusion on what is the correct way to look at enlarged primer flash holes.

If both are correct, then that is confusing also. Other wise something is not getting thru to me on the opening of primer flash holes.

( I have not ever opened up flash holes, but I have used reduced loads without noticing any noticeable difference in the primers I have used, compared to regularly loaded ones... Just did it a few days ago running some reduced loads for a ladder test for example. Anyway, I will be trying it out on purpose with an empty case though to see how that looks again. But, the ones with reduced loads looked like regular loads as far as primer seat change for me so far.)

codgerville@zianet.com

10-27-2017, 05:16 PM

I had a nasty surprise a few years ago when a fellow I've known for years gave me some 222 cases which had been sized, trimmed, and primed. Looked okay, so I loaded them with my favorite charge of 748 and 50 grain bullets. The first shot locked the bolt, sent smoke out of the raceways and the gas escape port. I pulled the bullets from the rest, carefully removed the primers, and found he had drilled the flash holes out to .110 thousandths. His idea of "uniforming" the flash holes. Lesson learned.

M-Tecs

10-27-2017, 05:31 PM

Opening flash holes was the rage with BPCR for a while. Some still do. For black powder blanks or wax bullets you have to open the flash hole. Problem is if the get mixed into higher pressure loads.

Char-Gar

10-27-2017, 05:34 PM

I have shot minimum loads and even loads under minimum with no primers backing out.

There are many variable in this equation. The chamber headspace will vary. The cartridge headspace will vary. The pressure will vary from load to load and firearm to firearm. A load that will produce backed out primers might not do it in another firearm.

I have had backed out primers in both rifles and handguns, due to low pressure load, but I have been loading and shooting for a very long time.

The business about the advantages of drilling out flash holes, for smokeless powder loads is bogus and I treated it in my post up the thread. It is a dangerous practice, if those cases ever get used for full charge loads.

If folks don't know who to believe or disbelieve, then try it for yourself and see what happens. "A sadder, but a wiser man, he woke the morrow more!"....Samuel Taylor Coleridge

rancher1913

10-27-2017, 05:41 PM

sorry for the hullabaloo, never meant to drill his holes only that I had drilled some for rubber bullets powered by primers alone, the instruction sheets called for drilling the holes or you would have primers backing out, my suggestion was to check that the primer hole was not fouled or bad. sure has been some good learning otherwise.

JBinMN

10-27-2017, 05:45 PM

Char Gar, I missed your earlier post , I think due to we posted so close together. You at 3:35(1535) & I at 3:38(1538).

After seeing your post above, I am going to go read the other now. It sounds from this last post that you answered the questions I have about opening up flash holes in primer pockets. I just missed it .

Hickory

10-27-2017, 06:01 PM

Cylinder end play can cause it too. But, you would start having misfired from light primer strikes.
Something worth checking.

John Boy

10-27-2017, 06:17 PM

The minimum load or a 45 Colt, 250-255gr bullet is 7.0 grs of Unique. Increase your powder charge to 7.5 and then 8.0grs. If the primers continue to back out, the issue sounds like a head space problem

jeff100

10-27-2017, 07:08 PM

I didn't mean to set off a forum storm with my post, was just looking for answers to something I wasn't understanding. Other than sticking a bullet in the bore, I never would have imagined problems that could occur from light loads. Load data varies from source to source, I don't recall if my 6.0 grain load was below any of my sources minimum starting loads. I don't use internet based load data, I have a dozen or more load manuals of various types that I rely on for load data. Thanks again to everyone. I've learned a lot from this thread, I hope others have found it of interest as well. For the record, I never have, nor will I drill out any flash holes! I had to head smack myself over that.

Happy trails everyone - JJ

JBinMN

10-27-2017, 07:44 PM

Well, I found your situation interesting, just as I did the other topic. Enough that I payed attention to both. I just happened to notice the difference in them & say something. In the interest of knowing which is correct, and to possibly make others aware of the two opposing views, I thought it proper to bring to to both topics readers attention, as well as anyone else who happened on one or the other. So, it is not you who anyone might get bothered about the bringing up of your situation.

No one has commented in that other topic about this so far. I do not know why. but I myself am still not understanding why, other than blanks/no projectile, or wax ones at low pressures, would anyone do it to use for loads of higher pressure and perhaps cause damage to the firearm or possibly injury to the user. Unless there is some good reason to do it in some circumstances.

Perhaps it is OK if one remembers to only use those particular cases for low pressure rounds & not let them get used for high pressure ones.

It is a case of either one, the other, or both. Up til now I have not seen anything that explains anything but the reasons in this topic to NOT to do it unless it is in low pressure type loads as mentioned. So, my understanding, until something changes & is explained differently or expounded upon, That is the way I will consider that practice. Hoping that someone who doesn't know the difference it makes to a case & uses them for a higher pressure round due to ignorance, then ends up with tragic results does not happen.

I think your topic here was a good thing because of what it provided for knowledge that some of us were not aware of before, not the other way around. So, Thanks! for sharing your experience in the OP so that folks can learn from what was shared here.
:)

Happy Trails to you too!
:)

P.S. - I am now going to be looking closely at primer openings more closely when I buy any cases that are not once fired, if I do happen to want to buy some cases at an auction/sale or find some laying around at a range or the like...

M-Tecs

10-27-2017, 08:03 PM

JBinMN

10-27-2017, 08:57 PM

The why of opening flash holes is to increase accuracy and ignition with certain loads or powder or to prevent primers from backing out on blanks and wax bullet loads.

some interesting discussion here.
https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/threads/large-flash-holes-dangerous.62189/

Thanks for bringing that link & its discussion here. It is Interesting. For me it still demonstrates two camps though. The one is the no use of those modified cases, but for low pressure situations like blanks & wax projectiles, and that is were I think I will keep "my" reloading practices. The last post in that discussion sounded pretty good for a recommendation. I think it is pretty sound advice. Particularly the underlined below.
The folks that develop sub-sonic rifle rounds often recommend boring out the flash holes to increase the effectiveness of primer ignition of the slower burning and typically lower pressure powders. They also recommend keeping the over bored flash hole case segregated to avoid potentially quite dangerous over pressure situations resulting from using those cases with standard faster powders and load data. Thus, in your case I would tend to err on the side of caution and not use the over bored flash hole cases in my normal reloading routine.

The OP says he contacted Winchester about those Non Toxic cartridges with the over size primer holes and said they told him the modified cases would be fine with normal loads. The quote from ReloaderFred thru Starline says that is not correct. But, Winchester apparently allowed production & sales of these "NT" rounds , knowing that the flash holes were acceptable for safety & could & likely would be used in the future by reloaders, even though they may not know about the primer flash hole situation...

So, that is part of the what is confusing...

Erring on the side of caution is prudent, IMO. Thus I say I am not interested in enlarging flash holes. But, apparently there are those who think it is Ok to do it, "but only under special circumstances" (<my emphasis) in certain loads other than blanks & wax/etc..

So now it is apparently a "both" are correct, dependent on circumstances.

I will be doing more snooping around & researching on this, simply because I am that sort. I am also quite surprised that I have not run into this circumstance before in the other research I have done about reduced loads & their makeup. I am not saying I have covered it all, but I sure have put some appreciable time into it. I know I have not ever researched "enlarged primer flash holes & their uses), but apparently it is time to start.

It does puzzle me a bit that I keep seeing it suggested to keep these modified cases separate from non modified ones due to possible issues, but at the same time some have offered that they can be used with normal load data... Something still just isn't sitting right with me due to that not being clear to me, but maybe I am just being skeptical & prudent by trying to stay to the safe side of caution.. I do not need any more "issues" at all, anywhere in "my" life right now. I will stick to the "just don't do it" mindset right now.

I thank you & anyone else who has shown an interest in explaining this stuff. It is just more knowledge about the "Art". It is good to share the reasons why things are done the way they are, & why things are not done to prevent issues.

oldblinddog

10-27-2017, 10:41 PM

Here is your answer: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?152431-Recipes-for-quot-Mouse-Fart-quot-Loads-in-30-06&p=1703746&viewfull=1#post1703746

Larry Gibson

10-27-2017, 10:43 PM

It never ceases to amaze me the contradictions we do;

Many firearm manufacturers say not to use handloads in their guns….yet we do.

Many :experts” say not to exceed SAAMI MAPs yet is some cartridges like the 45 Colt and 45-70 we do.

The powder manufactures and loading manuals say not to use below the “start” loads…yet we do.

Etc., etc. ad nauseum…….

And here because a manufacture say not to use regular loads in blank cases with enlarged flash holes we are saying the sky is falling and we must ell the king to never drill out flash holes no matter what…….

My point is when we use a technique what we are ”not supposed to do” according to the “experts” yet stay within the correct parameters for such technique the practice is safe and most often beneficial.

Drilling out flash holes is one of those techniques.

The use of drilled out flash holes is safe and beneficial when done with correct parameters. The use of such is to reduce shoulder setback which causes case headspace problems including misfires with rimless cartridges using LR primers with true cats’ sneeze loads. Additionally the use of rimless cases with drilled flash holes also increases ignition reliability (reduces powder position sensitivity) in such loads.

In this instance of backed out primers in 45 Colt cases would not be a proper use of drilled out flash holes. The case is a rimmed case and has no shoulder so there is no case headspace problem. Also the capacity of the case is really not that large to need drilled flash holes for improved ignition. The OP using Unique should either increase the charge of Unique or use a faster burning powder to solve the problem.

BTW; using cases with drilled out flash holes in proper cases such as the .308W or 30-06 with “regular cast bullets loads” such a 311291 over Unique, 4198, 2400, 3031 or 4895 at 1500 – 1900 fps does not increase pressure nor cause any other problems. I know this because I have tested such measuring the pressure. There really wasn’t much benefit with such loads over cases with regular flash holes either so their use isn’t necessary. However if you shoot real “cat’s sneeze” loads, especially in push feeds, with cartridges using LR primers the cases will develop case headspace problems resulting in misfires if you do not drill out the flash holes.

M-Tecs

10-27-2017, 10:51 PM

As chamber pressures go up the effect of an oversize flash hole increase.

The 45 acp is a relatively low pressure round. That is why Winchester stated the green case is safe with normal 21,000 and under 45 ACP loads.

Same with the 45 Colt and 45/70 that are commonly oversize. In the case of the 45 Colt some loads for some guns can triple the SAAMI chamber pressure. In the 45/70 some Ruger #1 and bolt guns loads jump from 28,000 psi max to over 50,000 psi.

vzerone

10-27-2017, 11:03 PM

That is a really light load of Unique even for a Colt SSA. I believe off the top of my head you can go 8-8.5 in the Colt. If you're not wanting to use much powder and stay on the light side Bullseye and Red Dot are better. I love Unique though for my loads that aren't light.

JBinMN

10-27-2017, 11:18 PM

Thanks oldblinddog & Larry Gibson for taking the time to help out. I will read the whole topic that was offered in just a few minutes & I read your post Mr. Gibson. I am posting this post in both topics since you both were kind enough to do so for the benefit of me and any one else who might have been interested.

As ya may or may not have seen, I was not "pointing this out to create any hassles, only to try to get clarification for myself & any others who may read about doing it to try an accomplish one thing & then not read about not doing it because it could cause a safety issue..."

Mr. Gibson, I would not consider that as the "sky falling" & "we must tell the king".

I have been following a topic that you posted a short time back that addressed your finding that some manuals pressure data using what is considered "normal" loads wer creating overpressure in some of your tests. Did your sharing of that information get considered as "the sky is falling" or " we must tell the king" type of a post? I did not get that feeling when I followed it. You appeared to be letting folks know something that you found that apparently was noteworthy enough to let folks here know about it. Some paid attention & some did not. But, I reckon it was your intention to let folks here know that you had found an "inconsistancy" in the data that was offered by a well known company in the ammunition/reloading/firearms field.

Well, maybe you don't see what I did as the same, but I saw what I thought was an "inconsistancy" in information & rather than condemn or belittle anyone, I asked for clarification on the issue. I saw one topic where it was OK & another where it was not. Not too much different IMO, than a manual stating a load is safe with pressure , but someone else saying it may not be.

I really appreciate the efforts anyone has made to clear up "my" confusion on this subject of the enlarged primer holes. I also would like folks to understand my efforts to find out here were motivated by the urge for more knowledge & from what I have understood, that is what this forum is all about. Sharing "correct" information to help out others & so folks don't make mistakes & have things happen that could have been avoided.

Now, if I am wrong in thinking that way, then perhaps someone could inform me about it thru a PM or something, so that "I" don't create the feeling that the sky is falling in either topic to prevent any hijacking of the subjects presented in each topic.

I, personally am satisfied with the explanations I have now read & do not intend to trouble anyone else here for info on this particular subject any longer. Of course, I cannot speak for anyone else.

Thanks again for your posts & help in understanding.

JBinMN

10-27-2017, 11:22 PM

oldblinddog

10-28-2017, 12:58 AM

It always pays to ask questions.

Big Mak

10-28-2017, 08:41 AM

This board's knowledge never ceases to amaze me!
Good read!

Nice having a bite to eat with you last night, Jeff100.

rancher1913

10-28-2017, 10:51 AM

now I am glad I started the hullabaloo, learned a lot, a big thank you for the further info.

ReloaderFred

10-28-2017, 12:11 PM

I've reloaded the Winchester NT cases (with the 1/8" flash hole) without a problem, but like M-Tecs said, it's a low pressure round.

The increased flash hole size was done during the development of the Diazodinitrophenol (DDNP) priming compound workups to relieve the increased brisance of the DDNP compound over the older lead styphnate compound. It, in addition to primer crimping and reducing the primer size to Small Pistol, were all iterations of the conversion process for the demand for Non-Toxic priming. This was driven in most part due to indoor ranges and lead contamination problems among employees and users, which is another whole discussion that has been beat to death all over the internet, and beyond. This is only offered as to an explanation of the oversize flash holes in Winchester and Federal .45 acp brass that I've encountered, and discussions with the Winchester and Federal reps at the various SHOT Shows when I've talked to them about the subject.

Hope this helps.

Fred

oldsalt444

10-30-2017, 12:35 PM

I bet that your gun has a headspace problem, not a load problem. Take your gun to good revolver smith and he can tell you. I had a similar problem with a Ruger Blackhawk. I sent it back to Ruger and they took care of it.

KCSO

10-30-2017, 12:44 PM

Also check the flash holes in the cases as a ton of 45 colt has had the holes drilled out for wax loads and such and the cases may not have been marked.

calico

11-02-2017, 12:09 PM

I am wondering if the firing pin bushing is seated below the level of the frame.

jeff100

11-08-2017, 07:21 PM

I finally made it back out to the range today to finish testing the hand loads for the 45 Colt that I had trouble with the primers backing out. The members that said my hand loads were too light were spot on the money. I finished shooting the rest of those hand loads that had a heavier charge of Unique and they all shot well, no issues with primers backing out (and staying backed out). Unfortunately I felt like Unique was not the right powder for this cartridge and I will try loads with the same boolit over a faster powder, Green Dot and IMR 700X, which I have a lot of it. If anyone wants to share their favorite powder for shooting cast in a 45 Colt revolver, I would be interested, even if your favorite is Unique. Thanks everyone.

ReloaderFred

11-08-2017, 09:52 PM

jeff100

11-08-2017, 10:03 PM

Glad you got it figured out. Light loads leave the primers backed out, and you're not the first one to be puzzled by it. It's just the nature of the beast and the way things are.

I use a lot of TrailBoss in my .45 Colt loads for my revolvers and Marlin rifles. I'm not loading barn burners with these, just having fun shooting...

Hope this helps.

Fred

Yes, it does Fred, thanks. I'm working up a comfortable load I can shoot all day in the 45 Colt. If I want to rattle the walls I'll get my 44 mags out. Others have mentioned Trail Boss, I'll have to pick up a pound and try it out.

JJ

ReloaderFred

11-09-2017, 02:23 AM

Jeff,

TrailBoss has really worked out well for me, since I also wanted some light loads that I could shoot all day. I use a 200 gr. RNFP bullet in both the revolvers and the rifles. I can regularly hit the 10" gong at 100 yards offhand with my TB and 200 gr. loads from the rifle. That's good enough for what I want to do with it, but to tell you the truth, I've never really shot it from the bench at 100 yards to see what it will actually group.

TrailBoss comes in a 9 oz. bottle, but there's a lot of loads in 9 ounces, and it works out to about the same price as other powders, at least where I buy it. I'm currently spending $16.95 per bottle, if I buy the one pound size. I prefer to buy my powders by the keg, and the regular 8 pound keg only holds 5 pounds of TrailBoss. It's that fluffy!

Hope this helps.

Fred

M-Tecs

11-09-2017, 05:46 AM

I felt like Unique was not the right powder for this cartridge and I will try loads with the same boolit over a faster powder, Green Dot and IMR 700X, which I have a lot of it. If anyone wants to share their favorite powder for shooting cast in a 45 Colt revolver, I would be interested, even if your favorite is Unique. Thanks everyone.

8 grains Unique. Over 50K loaded since the early 70's

6bg6ga

11-09-2017, 07:16 AM

All primers back out when fired. The case movement reseats them. If the case doesn't have enough pressure to reseat them it can be a problem. Two tests to prove it. Fire a primed empty case in a revolver and see what happens. Second test is to note the primer depth on any of your loads. Fire them and check to see how many are still below flush.

I've been following this thread with interest and to see if there is something I can learn from it. So far I disagree with the primers backing out with too lite a load. I tried firing a cartridge without a bullet and power and the result is it fired and the primer didn't move back. I repeated this several times and the result is the same. I tried this with my 686-6 also and the result was the primer didn't back out a bit.

So, I have a 686-6 with a total number of rounds thru it is less than 100. I have a 25-5 with about the same total of rounds thru it. I have a new 629-6 with only 50 rounds thru it. None of these will back the primer out with an empty case and none will back out the primer with mouse type loads.

I question your findings. Respectfully however. Please do find printed reliable information to back up this backing the primer from the case with low power loads.

6bg6ga

11-09-2017, 07:42 AM

As one that has to look at all the information in order to solve my customers problems on service calls that I run I find myself wanting to add to the information, my experiences of not having primers back out.

First of all I have to look at the cases. They all are brand new. They all are Starline in the case of the 44magnum and 45LC. The 357 cases are WW and again are 100% new and never before fired. The primers mic on the high side the diameter. Not all primers are the same size as some that you notice that go in easy can and sometimes do mic a little smaller. The guns are what you could call almost new and never abused so to be blunt not badly worn or worn out.

So far in looking on the web the only references I have seen to primers backing out were in the 45LC and rifles. I still have not come up with info from what I will consider to be a noted credible loader like Elmer keith.

ReloaderFred

11-09-2017, 01:14 PM

6bg6ga

11-09-2017, 06:48 PM

Here is a link to what a primer does upon firing, though the article addresses rifle ammunition, but the principle is the same for handguns:

https://loaddata.com/Article/LoadDevelopment/Mistakes-and-Misconceptions/139

The pertinent information is in Paragraph 14 & 15.

Hope this helps.

Fred

Sir, I understand what is supposed to happed or the supposed theory. I don't understand however why I cannot reproduce the same effects. The fact I cannot reproduce the primer kick back has me wondering. I used a lab type control using NEW brass and primers that were miced to make sure I didn't have undersized primers. I simply cannot get a primer kick back.

ReloaderFred

11-09-2017, 07:21 PM

I see it all the time in our SASS matches. People try to back off the loads as much as possible for shooting steel targets at relatively close range. When they get too light with their loads, the cylinders lock up from backed out primers. At the next match, after bumping up their loads, they no longer have the problem.

When I was rangemaster for our department back in the late 1970's, we fired some courses using wax bullets in .38 Spl. revolvers. We had the same problem with primers backing out and locking up the cylinders of our Model 19's. For that purpose, I drilled out the flash holes to 1/8" and marked the brass with a cut in the case rim so they wouldn't get loaded for practice ammunition. Relieving the primer pressure stopped the backed out primers from locking up the cylinders.

I've been loading since 1963, and I remember one of the owners of a gunshop telling me when I first started about this condition, and to make sure that my loads were "strong enough" to reseat the primers. I've been able to cause primers to back out when I've tried it, but I can't explain why your experiment didn't give the same result.

The last time I had it happen was when making some dummy rounds in .45-70 for a class, and they wanted the expended primers left in place. I ended up priming 50 rounds of old .45-70 brass and firing them one at a time in my 1895 Marlin with just the primers. I had to reseat every one of those primers, as they were backed out of the cases a considerable distance. So much in fact, that I had to use an RCBS shell holder with the recess for primers in order to reseat them. The backed out primers wouldn't allow the cases to enter my Redding shell holder past the primers.

Hope this helps.

Fred

9.3X62AL

11-09-2017, 07:47 PM

My 45 Colt-ing gets done with a Ruger Bisley Blackhawk x 7.5". These are a stronger platform than are Colt SAAs or their clones by Uberti.

My pet 45 Colt load using Unique is 10.0 grains. I also use 10.5 grains of Herco. Both loads give 980-1020 FPS to either Lyman #454424 or #454190. In my Uberti Cattleman x 4.75", I backed both powder weights off by 1.0 grains. Velocities in the PastaColta's shorter barrel were in the 820-850 FPS range. 9.0 grains of Unique in the Uberti did not give sticky extraction, and 10.0 grains does not cause stickiness in the Ruger.

JBinMN

11-09-2017, 10:45 PM

I've been following this thread with interest and to see if there is something I can learn from it. So far I disagree with the primers backing out with too lite a load. I tried firing a cartridge without a bullet and power and the result is it fired and the primer didn't move back. I repeated this several times and the result is the same. I tried this with my 686-6 also and the result was the primer didn't back out a bit.

So, I have a 686-6 with a total number of rounds thru it is less than 100. I have a 25-5 with about the same total of rounds thru it. I have a new 629-6 with only 50 rounds thru it. None of these will back the primer out with an empty case and none will back out the primer with mouse type loads.

Snip...

I appreciate your attempts to experiment to find out for yourself if you could have an issue with these sort of things. I work on reduced loads to help my missus be able to have fun & shoot due to her hand health issues. I am interested, since you are taking the time & effort to try to find out this sort of thing, to learn more about your results from your testing. Your limiting the experiments to new brass & primers is a good way to narrow the results from having variables that effect your tests & possibly skew your results.It is & would be great if you continue to share what you find & add as many dtails about what you are testing & how so folks can learn from it.

I am curious, since after reading your posts & not seeing what I would like to know...
Could you please say what primers you used to test for this issue with the non loaded rounds?

The reason I ask , is that difference primer manufacturers have different primer "brisance". ( I believe that is the correct term...) That each manufacturer , since they have different "pressures" based on the "brisance" amount, may mean that one with the low brisance may not cause the effect of having the primer back out with no projectile to cause "back pressure, while another may have more brisance & thus even if there is no projectile, it has enough brisance/"power" to cause the primer to back out.

Also, do you think that maybe , since the rounds were not loaded when you checked that particular type of primer , that there was no "back pressure" to force the primers out of the pockets based on their "brisance" level?
Or, does the combination have to have that "back pressure" in new cases like you are using. Then, if the cases are "once fired" or more, the primer pocket may have opened up a bit & then it may not take that "back pressure from a projectile to cause the primer to back out...Thus being that way so far, that your experiment may just not have had the right "parameters" to fully cover "all the bases" to make a determination on what is/might be happening, since you are using new unfired cases & not those that have been fired more than once & then creating another variable to consider in your test results..

Thanks for reporting your findings & I , for one, am interested in more info if you are willing to share it. If ya have the time & inclination to reply with more data & results, that would be excellent.
Helps out other if nothing else & saves others from having to repeat the same tests for themselves.
;)

ReloaderFred

11-09-2017, 11:16 PM

Just for clarification, Brisance is the measurement of the speed of an explosion, or the shattering effect, not the amount of the explosion. Brisance has a bearing in primers when comparing Lead Styphnate primers to Diazondinitropenol (DDNP) primers, which are what the newer non-toxic primers are made of.

I understand what you're referring to, JBnMN, it's just an incorrect term in this circumstance. What you're looking for is the volume of gases released from the explosive compound of the different priming mixtures from different manufacturers, since each company uses a proprietary compound in their primers.

Hope this helps.

Fred

JBinMN

11-09-2017, 11:22 PM

Just for clarification, Brisance is the measurement of the speed of an explosion, not the amount of the explosion. Brisance has a bearing in primers when comparing Lead Styphnate primers to Diazondinitropenol (DDNP) primers, which are what the newer non-toxic primers are made of.

I understand what you're referring to, JBnMN, it's just an incorrect term in this circumstance. What you're looking for is the volume of gases released from the explosive compound of the different priming mixtures from different manufacturers, since each company uses a proprietary compound in their primers.

Hope this helps.

Fred

Thanks Fred!
:)

At least you & I knew what I was talking about with "pressure" rather than speed. Thanks for your clarification so both myself &others will understand the difference & what I was really trying to talk about.
:)

Next is for me to figure out what that term is for the pressure of the primer only & the expanding gases produced. I am sure there is a term for it, but either my memory fails me right now, or ignorance keeps me from remembering or knowing right now.
;)

Thanks again for your help.
:drinks:

ReloaderFred

11-10-2017, 12:59 AM

I think pressure pretty well covers it, JB. Just about everything involved in a round going off centers around pressure, and it's effect on the various components and containment vessels.

Hope this helps.

Fred

jeff100

11-10-2017, 01:16 AM

Next is for me to figure out what that term is for the pressure of the primer only & the expanding gases produced. I am sure there is a term for it, but either my memory fails me right now, or ignorance keeps me from remembering or knowing right now.

Could that term be brisance?

JJ

ReloaderFred

11-10-2017, 01:44 AM

Could that term be brisance?

JJ

Brisance refers to the velocity, or fracturing effect, of an explosive. I think what we're looking at is the amount of pressure the primer produces, and how that pressure is alleviated.

Fred

jeff100

11-11-2017, 05:05 PM

Brisance refers to the velocity, or fracturing effect, of an explosive. I think what we're looking at is the amount of pressure the primer produces, and how that pressure is alleviated.

Fred

Well, OK. Doing a little digital digging around, the only other term I could find that related to primer performance was the term 'blast pressure'. I found this term in a Cornell University Library white paper titled Performance testing of lead free primers. This paper also used this term blast pressure waveform to describe a graph showing primer (detonation) pressure waveforms for various brand primers. This was an interesting read to me, if you have an interest this white paper can be found here.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1410/1410.6390.pdf

JJ