MidSouth Shooters SupplyRotoMetals2Reloading EverythingLoad Data
Inline FabricationTitan ReloadingWidenersRepackbox
Lee Precision
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: 9mm with SP and SR primers psi tests

  1. #1
    Boolit Grand Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    21,305

    9mm with SP and SR primers psi tests

    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.
    Last edited by Larry Gibson; 04-09-2021 at 11:23 AM.
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  2. #2
    Boolit Master 44magLeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lebanon, NY
    Posts
    1,019
    In a Contender, being it has enough hammer to fire rifle primers and other pistols don't have, would the heavier walls of rifle primers cause misfires?
    Leo

  3. #3
    Moderator


    Winger Ed.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just outside Gun Barrel City, Texas
    Posts
    9,484
    Thanks for posting that.

    Just before the shortage, I grabbed a brick of CCI SPs, and didn't notice they were magnums.
    Getting home, I had my doubts if my .38 WC S&W model 52 would have a hard enough strike to kick them off.

    My powder charge is pretty minimal anyway, so I loaded up a couple hundred, and went to the range.
    I didn't take a chrono. or do any pressure tests...... But they performed flawlessly.

    All those little black dots were deader than a hammer.
    Not a single one was only wounded, and had to be drug off by the target Kong.
    In school: We learn lessons, and are given tests.
    In life: We are given tests, and learn lessons.


    OK People. Enough of this idle chit-chat.
    This ain't your Grandma's sewing circle.
    EVERYONE!
    Back to your oars. The Captain wants to waterski.

  4. #4
    Boolit Buddy hermans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    At the Southern most tip of Africa
    Posts
    456
    Larry, very interesting post! Thanks for sharing your test results.

  5. #5
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    OKC , Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,384
    Thanks for the test it certainly looks like no real difference with those powders.
    I will retest the 9mm I tested with be86 the last time I tested it was getting 70fps higher with magnum primers all else the same including gun . I have no way to test pressure and I took that as a sign of higher pressure.

  6. #6
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ball Ground, GA
    Posts
    415
    A super big thank you to Larry. All the prep work of loading and recording the data is very time consuming. To have a member be willing to do this is so nice. The results were eye opening to say the least. Very valuable information.
    Again Larry, Thank you.
    Tony

  7. #7
    Boolit Grand Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    21,305
    Quote Originally Posted by onelight View Post
    Thanks for the test it certainly looks like no real difference with those powders.
    I will retest the 9mm I tested with be86 the last time I tested it was getting 70fps higher with magnum primers all else the same including gun . I have no way to test pressure and I took that as a sign of higher pressure.
    Using the chronograph and getting 80 fps higher can certainly be an indicator of higher psi. However, I would hesitate to say that if the SP load was loaded and tested, say, 6 months ago. I would only consider it valid if the rounds were loaded at the same time with the only difference being the primer and then only if chronographed back to back during the same session. Other wise there's just too many variables between the tests.
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  8. #8
    Boolit Master
    dtknowles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeast Louisiana
    Posts
    4,858
    Great work Larry. What I find very surprising is the overall consistency and the precision regarding full bore load pressures and SAAMI MAP.
    Words are weapons sharper than knives - INXS

    The pen is mightier than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton

    The tongue is mightier than the blade - Euripides

  9. #9
    I'm A Honcho!
    bluejay75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,752
    Great work sir.

    I have not purchased a small pistol primer in almost 4 years. SR primers get loaded for all of my revolvers and rifles. Only had one issue with one load in all that time. 6 grains of Unique and a 180 WFN. Ran fine in revolvers but pierced primers in rifle. Very accurate load but burned hot enough to damage the firing pin in that rifle. That is a touch over max in newer manuals but was found in an older manual as good. Your stocks of supplies might not be as low as you think.
    You never know how you rank amongst men 'til you have seen what will break another man.
    The original "Bluejay" US Army/ US Navy 1945-1970.

  10. #10
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Wilmington NC
    Posts
    1,441
    Thanks for your efforts.

    It is great to have factual information. Even if the pesky facts do not line up with what we expected.

    I would also note that almost any change in components can cause a small change in the results. This can be something as simple as changing to a new batch of powder. Many times a change is made with no detectable impact to the results. That does not mean there will always be no impact.

    The last two words of the first post really says what we all need to take away from this. Use caution.

  11. #11
    Boolit Bub Hodagtrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Location
    Rhinelander, Wisconsin
    Posts
    69
    Thanks Larry for the time and effort in testing the various primers in 9mm loads.

    Chris

  12. #12
    Boolit Buddy fa38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    212
    The small rifle primers in my Rem 51 do not work. Not a heavy enough primer strike. They work fine in my CZ85c and both 1911 9mm pistols.
    M. Stenback

  13. #13
    Boolit Master Forrest r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    2,079
    quickloads will have insight why some powders have increased pressures when using hotter primers. 3n37 & 3n38 are known for this. It has to do with how much of the powder burns. On another website a guy is using 3n38 with a 115gr bullet in a 9mm and getting +/- 70% burn.

    Increase the ability to burn the powder and the load becomes more efficient , the pressure rising is a byproduct of this.

  14. #14
    Boolit Master

    dale2242's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    SW Oregon
    Posts
    2,466
    Great job Larry.
    An excellent and well done test that is up to Larry Gibsons excellent standards.

  15. #15
    Boolit Master


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Perryville, Ky,USA
    Posts
    4,513
    Thanks for the tests, Larry. Have a bunch of SR primers and have been using them in place of SP for about a year in medium .357 Mag loads. Brought this up in a thread earlier but it's good to see some real data for a change. Thanks for your trouble and efforts./beagle
    diplomacy is being able to say, "nice doggie" until you find a big rock.....

  16. #16
    Boolit Grand Master

    mdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    So. Orygun
    Posts
    7,239
    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.
    Thanks for the excellent info! It's great to see a definitive test from a trusted testing source. I haven't had any "trouble" with substituting primers because I have always used Mr. Gibson's suggestion above. Regardless of primer "power" or designed use, I always start over with low/starting data and work up when I substitute anything.
    My Anchor is holding fast!

  17. #17
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    OKC , Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gibson View Post
    Using the chronograph and getting 80 fps higher can certainly be an indicator of higher psi. However, I would hesitate to say that if the SP load was loaded and tested, say, 6 months ago. I would only consider it valid if the rounds were loaded at the same time with the only difference being the primer and then only if chronographed back to back during the same session. Other wise there's just too many variables between the tests.
    One of my shooting buddies loaded the 9s with the mag and standard primers the standard had been loaded for a few months the mag primers were loaded 2 days before we tested them . He is experienced and loads the same loads every time so he never changes his die or PM adjustment .
    But I think I will load and retest both primers in the same batch and test on the same day and also test 10 of each instead of 5 .
    Larry thank you again for posting your results and all the help you give here.

  18. #18
    Boolit Master pjames32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    NW New Mexico
    Posts
    707
    Larry....Thanks for the post and the testing. Good information for all of us.
    NRA Benefactor Member

  19. #19
    I'm A Honcho!
    bluejay75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,752
    Larry...following your lead I had the idea of doing the same with LRPs in 44 magnum. But then I remembered I have no way of testing pressure. Would love to see the same with the range of LPPs that you have and LRPs. They do fit in an un-modified 44 case. I have primed some recently in Starline and RP. That dispels half of that myth right there.

    Maybe in 45 ACP too. If you did YouTube the above would have 100,000 views in a week.
    You never know how you rank amongst men 'til you have seen what will break another man.
    The original "Bluejay" US Army/ US Navy 1945-1970.

  20. #20
    Boolit Grand Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    21,305
    Quote Originally Posted by bluejay75 View Post
    Larry...following your lead I had the idea of doing the same with LRPs in 44 magnum. But then I remembered I have no way of testing pressure. Would love to see the same with the range of LPPs that you have and LRPs. They do fit in an un-modified 44 case. I have primed some recently in Starline and RP. That dispels half of that myth right there.

    Maybe in 45 ACP too. If you did YouTube the above would have 100,000 views in a week.
    I've no idea the value of 100,000 views in a week"....could you enlighten me?

    As to your question; LR primers do not fit into 44 magnum cases unless the primer pockets are reamed out. I have conducted a test with 44 magnum cases having the primer pockets reamed out .

    44 Magnum with LR Primers

    Thought I’d just start a new thread instead of digging up the old one. Got a break in the weather so I conducted the test of LR primers in the 44 Magnum. SAAMI MAP (Maximum Average Pressure) for the 44 Magnum is 36,000 psi with a MPSM (Maximum Probable Sample Mean) of 38,800 psi.

    The test was conducted with a Contender pistol and the Oehler M43. All tests are 9 or 10 shot test strings. I had 2 FTF with the Contender and 2 of the primers. I used two loads;

    RCBS 44-250-K cast of WWs + 2 %tin with a BHN of 16, sized .430 and lubed with Javelina
    WW Super 44 Magnum cases (new) with primer pockets reamed for LR primers
    WW Super 44 Magnum cases (new) with standard primer pockets with control loads
    OAL; 1.711”
    Powders; Alliant 2400 (21 gr) & H110 (23 gr)
    Results listed as; primer/average velocity (fps)/SD/ES/average PSI (M43)/SD/ES

    H110 load;
    Control load;
    WLP/1400/24/78/21,700/1,200/3,600

    LR primer loads;
    Rem 9 1/2/1466/47/112/25,200/3,500/8,500
    CCI 200/1390/49/141/22,100/1,500/4,200
    CCI #34/1507/35/107/28,300/3,000/9,000
    WLR/1506/26/85/28,500/2,300/6,000
    Fed 215/1544/12/36/31,600/1,500/4,100

    Here we see all the psi’s within SAAMI proscribed MAP. We find the control load with WLP primers to be relatively mild. The hotter Fed 215 magnum LR primer produced the most consistent internal ballistics and the highest psi with the highest velocity with H110. No pressure problems observed with using the LR primers in this load with H110 powder.

    Alliant 2400 load;
    Control load;
    Fed 150/1542/18/51/30,800/1,000/2,700

    LR primer loads;
    Rem 9 1/2/1603/13/37/34,700/500/1,200
    CCI 200/1589/20/46/33,000/1,800/5,000
    CCI #34/1634/10/27/37,900/1,900/5,500
    WLR/1633/8/22/37,600/1,000/2,600
    Fed 215/1641/13/29/41,200/1,900/4,100

    Here we see some LR primers (the “soft” 9 ½ & 200) are OK with this load keeping the psi under the SAAMI MAP/ However, when magnum level LR primers are used we see the psi going Over the MAP and the Fed 215 psi going over the MPSM. Note the very good internal ballistics with this load of 2400 with all the primers tested. Obviously this load is burning very efficiently in the 30K to 41K psi range.

    The pressure ES aren't really that large and are within SAAMI specs for psi variation of an acceptable load. One thing I've learned in the multiple tests I've run with numerous cartridge/loads is that within acceptable variation there isn't a correlation between psi ES and fps ES. Seems like there would be but there isn't. It’s one of those theories of this game that sound good but don't pan out in actual testing.

    BTW; SAAMI uses a constant from the Biometrika Tables for Statisticians based on the sample size for 90% confidence to determine the maximum allowable psi ES. If we use the H110 control load for an example;

    H110 load;
    Control load;
    WLP/1400/24/78/21,700/1,200/3,600

    We find the maximum allowable psi ES would be 6,192. Even the largest psi ES of; CCI #34/1507/35/107/28,300/3,000/9,000 was still within the maximum allowable psi ES (15,480) for that load with that psi SD.

    However, to actually determine what is an acceptable psi variation range SAAMI also uses a maximum allowable SD for acceptable loads. This is 4% of the MAP. This is 1,440 psi SD for the 44 Magnum. We see both control loads with the LP primers are within this allowable SD variation. Only 2 of the Alliant 2400 loads with LR primers are within the allowable SD variation. None of the H110 loads with LR primers fall within the SAAMI acceptable psi SD variation range.

    The groups at 50 yards were good, bad and ugly. I wasn't really trying for best accuracy being more concerned with collecting the measured data. I always shoot better not shooting through screens but I was shooting fairly well. The reason for the inaccuracy is with this Contender barrel accuracy any BB cast bullet cast bullet goes south over 1400 fps. With a FB'd cast bullet like the RCBS bullet used accuracy is usually good through 1480 - 1500 fps. Over that and it goes south. That's what we see here, the H110 load at 1400 fps gave a 10 shot group of 1.95". The Alliant 2400 group at 1542 fps and a much higher psi gave a 3.6" group. The higher velocity/higher psi loads accuracy with the LR primers got down right ugly

    Attachment 281125

    Obviously the use of LR primers raises the psi in both loads. I’ll leave the question of “is it dangerous” for you all to decide. Note; I was not able to seat LR primers in standard pocket cases without severely scrunching them so the Contender would close or the cylinder of my Colt Anaconda or Ruger BHFT would rotate. To use LR primers in the WW Super cases really requires the primer pockets be reamed out.
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check