Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
I shot the above targets with a new to me Rossi 92 pre safety stainless chambered in .45 Colt. The loads are identical except for the primers. The load consists of as much RL-7 as I can get in the case and still sit an M & P 250gr FNPB cast bullet to a functional length. OAL is 1.60". I used W/W brass. The paster on the left used the Remington 2 1/2 primer. The load on the right used the CCI-350 primer. Both targets were shot from the bench at a distance of 35yrds with a aperture sight. Ballistic uniformity favored the load to the right. I have seen many examples were different primers had discernible results on group size and load uniformity but this target really brings the point home. 1886.
I did a similar test and found that Winchester primers overall grouped the best and when I can afford them, the Federal Gold Match. This just applies to my firearms and loads.
I know a whole lot about very little and nothing about a whole lot.
[quote="RKrodle"]Very interesting. What kind of velocity are you getting with RL-7?
Velocity ran right at 1500fps. I do not think it is a very good load. There was much unburned powder. Accuracy and ballistic uniformity did improve as charge weights increased but I just ran out of case capacity. RL-7 is entirely too slow for this application. It would probably work better with heavier for caliber bullets. Accuracy was impressive though. I just wanted to see if the rifle wanted to shoot while playing with RL-7 at the same time. 1886.
General question- Do some primers tend to be more accurate than others?
I think some primers are more appropriate than others in certain applications. CCI-350 is the primer to use with 296/ H-110. So that primer would certain lend itself to greater ballistic uniformity. Accuracy tends to follow uniformity. I am speaking generally. BR-2 or Fed-210M are manufactured " more carefully"/exacting standards than non match primers so it seems reasonable to conclude those two primers may lead to producing more accurate loads if used within their limitations. Again I am speaking generally. 1886.
So, what does that load do at 100 yards? 35 yards don't impress me much. Not being an @$$, but I can shoot almost that good with my handgun at 35 yards.
Joe
***Be sneaky, get closer, bust the cap on him when you can put the ball where it counts .***
1886, thanks for posting that. Must be why Mic McPherson recommended the CCI 350 to me with heavy 45 Colt +P loads and H110!
Primers do make a big difference and I can further cite some examples. In my 375 H&H AI with LARGE doses of Ramshot Magnum powder or IMR 7828 SSC, switching to a Win LRM primer from the Fed 215 Mag Match (Weatherby's only recommended primer-what a joke!) resulted in reduced pressure and an increase of velocity of 100 fps +. Mic told me it is the hottest primer on the market and might benefit my large doses of compressed powder. Accuracy differences were not noticable in this magnum cartridge.
I have used both a Fed LR primer and CCI BR-2 LR Match in my 358 Win BLR, and accuracy greatly favored the BR-2 in my rifle with no loss in velocity.
The ballistically most accurate load I have ever shot (or even HEARD of!) has been in my 11mm 71/84 Mauser using Blue Dot
and the CCI LP primer, which performed even better than the CCI BR-2. An 11 shot string had a SD of 3 and an extreme spread of 12 fps!!!! That is with the caveat that I tipped the barrel back before each shot to settle the powder towards the primer.
Yeah, I guess you could say that primers make a difference! Please don't take my word for it-read some books!!!
-Tutt
"It ain't dead! As long as there's ONE COWBOY taking care of ONE COW, it ain't dead!!!" (the Cowboy Way)
-Monte Walsh (Selleck version)
"These battered wings still kick up dust." -Peter Gabriel
So, what does that load do at 100 yards? 35 yards don't impress me much. Not being an @$$, but I can shoot almost that good with my handgun at 35 yards.
Joe
No idea Joe. This is not a "see how good my rifle shoots" post. The purpose of the post was to visually demonstrate the effect two different primers can have on an otherwise identical load. I did not set out to make this demonstration though. I merely wanted to see if a recent purchase showed any ability to shoot accurately. The demonstration was just an interesting by product. 1886.
A couple years back when I was developing my 38-55 hunting load for my 1893 I had a similar experience. Over the cronograph the load was right where I wanted it for velocity and pressure but it wasn't as accurate as I thought it should be. The max deviation of the load was next to nil but it just wouldn't shoot as good as I wanted. Went from a WLR to a CCI 200, there wasn't any velocity change (to speak of) or SD change but the groups went from about 3" to about an inch. That's reloading I've seen it countless times in just about every caliber.
"People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work."
El Chivo wrote:yes but, wouldn't it be possible to find a point where the other primer is dead-on accurate and the current one spreads out?
what I mean is, isn't it a matter of tuning your components to each other, not that any primer is better or worse.
Exactly, it's not that there's something "wrong" with the current primer. It's just that it's not quite right with "that load, in that gun".
Everything can be a variable, I've taken a lackluster 45acp cast load, turned it into a tack driver with a change of .020 in overall length and that was with mixed headstamp military brass. That's with shooting it in two different pistols and I usually don't get that lucky. I've seen it with a different crimp too, simply adding a crimp to a load that doesn't really need it or the reverse of all of the above.
"People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work."
El Chivo wrote:yes but, wouldn't it be possible to find a point where the other primer is dead-on accurate and the current one spreads out?
what I mean is, isn't it a matter of tuning your components to each other, not that any primer is better or worse.
Your premise is theoretically correct so El Chivo is on to something. In this case there is probably just not enough case capacity to make the Rem. 2 1/2 primer "work". The CCI primer being hotter merely compensates in this instance for a bad powder choice. It is possible that a powder charge could be found that would group well with the Rem. 2 1/2 primer but probably not better than the CCI primer. Again I only wanted to demonstrate that changing just one variable, the primer in this instance, can have a dramatic effect on group size. I did not set out with this in mind. I was just trying to find a load that might work with this combination of components. I wanted to see if the rifle I purchased might want to shoot. The wild card in all of this is the cast bullet but it is just one variable. The operative word is cast. Accurate cast bullet shooting can be a black art. If I knew how hard this particular bullet was I could more accurately predict which components MIGHT work well. Emphasis on might work well. This is all getting way to deep for me but it is a useful exercise. Go experiment for your self and give my head a break. Thanks.1886.
That sure was interesting. I have noticed a primer difference when using very accurate rifles, (257 Rbts., 22-250, etc.) but for the most part, I never noticed any deviation with brands of primers when using cast bullets with fast to semi fast powder (Bullseye, Unique) in leverguns or brands of primers in rifle cartridge leverguns using fast powders (A.A.5744) and I probably send 5-8K a year over the screens and into paper. I have noticed a difference between rifle primers and pistol primers when using cast bullets in levergun cartridges but it was always a hit or miss so I just stay with Federal/Rem. and use rifle primers in rifle cartridges and pistol primers in pistol calibered leverguns. Thanks-------------Sixgun
1st. Gen. Colt SAA’s, 1878 D.A.45 and a 38-55 Marlin TD
Thanks for the demo, 1886. I had less than memorable results my first time out with a new Ruger BH .41 Magnum. I look forward to the next load tests with different primers -- CCI 350s as a matter of fact.
Thanks for that tidbit.
.***
I've seen it countless times in just about every caliber.
