Federal primers packaging

But back to Greg's Roy Weatherby question. I would suggest that Weatherby recommeded Federal primers to ensure there would be no mis-fires when using his ammunition while hunting dangerous game in Africa.

But on a somewhat opposite note, Federals are not particularly recommeded for 06 usage with the M-1 Garand due to the greater possibility of slam-fires with that softer primer. Instead, the harder CCIs are the much better primer of choice.

We seem to be getting a little too far out on a tangent here but it makes for interesting conversation.
 
I think the term sensitivity is perhaps being mis-used. Sensitivity in most energetics discussions relates primarily to shock/impact/heat/static discharge/friction/etc. conditions that makes the energetic material ignite or detonate. Is this the sensitivity you're referring to?

There is some anecdotal information on the web that suggests the primer cup on Federal primers is less stiff than others, although the measurement technique was not described. It is only normalized to other primer manufacturers though so it is useful as comparative data, and relates ONLY to the ease by which the primer cup is deformed by the firing pin after spring rates are changed. To extrapolate that "data" to sensitivity as defined above is a stretch.

I have to believe Federal chose their packaging to fit their manufacturing processes and to ensure safe shipping.
 
A FedEx or UPS driver

reminds me of the story about this guy, no name, no town, just this guy. When I tell stories like that I start with "You are not going to believe this", that is the beginning of a story that did not happen, something like MOTHER GOOSE, BROTHERS GRIMM, it is a fairy tale, it did not happen.

What did happen is R. Lee duped Internet reloaders into thinking Federal primers were more powerful and dangerous. I understood the part about being dangerous but the more powerful sold me. Many reloaders claimed to have purchased R. Lee's book on modern reloading. If the claim is correct few of them read the book. R. Lee did not test Federal primers, in his book he wrote Federal primers were not tested because they did not donate primers to be tested.

So the story about Federal primers took on a life, I find it interesting Federal could have gone to the big box to give R. Lee something to complain about. then there are all those duped reloaders, I have a large flip tray, getting primers to roll /turn over, no matter the size of the tray goes without a consideration for the difficulty.

The truck hit a bump:confused: The only warning I ever received with instructions came with defoliant.

F. Guffey
 
4runnerman: Thanks, I went looking for data and found a lot of opinions on forums. The delta thicknesses may translate to stiffness as well, depending on the mechanical properties of the alloys and how they were handled after cup forming operations. Boatloads of variables to consider, but none of them relate to "sensitivity". :D
 
Now I use Gm210M in the 308 and have never had a problem, On the same page- I used to use GM205M in my 6BR. I found that the 205M's will just not handle the high pressure loads. I was getting pierced primers at 30.5 gn RL-15.
Switched to CCI-BR4's and never have had that problem since. Which now I am up to 31.5 gn RL-15.
 
Greg re: post #22
"Is this the sensitivity you are referring to?"

With reference to primer "sensitivity" as used throughout this thread, my use of the term relates to the relative ease or difficulty required for primer ignition by some form of mechanical impact, most commonly by that of a firing pin. If you can propose a better term, what is it?

Note that I have never discredited Federal primers and use them primarily for handgun rounds; rifle no for primers, but Federal brass yes. I don't think you have indicated one way or the other. If you disagree that Federals are more "sensitive" than most others, just say so.
 
Last edited:
condor bravo: I have no way to determine either the sensitivity of the primer compounds or the hardness of the cups analytically. I use Federal primers only in the 3 Weatherby calibers I load for so I'm a poor comparator. I have not had a primer of any brand ignite during reloading. Since I don't muck about with spring rates, I can't comment about the hardness of various primers empirically either. All of my weapons go bang when I pull the trigger because the guys that design weapons for a living have already calculated the forces required to pop a cap. Yes, people other than weapons designers sell spring kits, and I scratch my head when I read posts about changing springs and all of a sudden the weapons start to misfire. All of a sudden it's the primer "sensitivity" that everyone knows about.

There's a lot of crap in the internet realm, some is fact, more than a lot is bull-oney. It fills the blogosphere faster than truth because it's fun to speculate endlessly. It takes on a life of it's own and soon becomes truth. Like the guy who told you about the primers at Dillon. To him, it was gospel.

As far as a descriptive term for the ease by which the primer is plastically deformed to such an extent that the energetic material therein is activated, sensitivity isn't correct. It's a term reserved for the behavior of energetics as I described above, and those that work with or around such materials are intimate with the term and what it means. I'm one of those lucky guys that got to spend a fair amount of my professional life doing so.

Perhaps softness is a more descriptive term, as there is some objective and empirical data supporting that term. I would agree that some Federal primer cups are probably softer than some other brands. And I'm equally sure that it is by design that Federal manufactures their primers that way.
 
Here's a link to some empirical testing of relative brisance.

http://www.castingstuff.com/primer_testing_reference.htm


As the originator states it "don't mean squat", but since the test method was consistent throughout, it does represent a relative data set.

Interesting that the Federal LP primers were the least energetic of those tested. It does not imply anything with regards to sensitivity as the measurements were testing relative power.

Cool data though.

And if you want a quick education in energetics, here's a link to the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_material
 
Last edited:
Now I use Gm210M in the 308 and have never had a problem, On the same page- I used to use GM205M in my 6BR. I found that the 205M's will just not handle the high pressure loads. I was getting pierced primers at 30.5 gn RL-15.
Switched to CCI-BR4's and never have had that problem since. Which now I am up to 31.5 gn RL-15.
__________________

Pierced primers: That just goes to show 'something' ? The only way I can get a pierced primer is when the firing pin springs is pushed back by the pressure. By increasing the spring pressure the firing pin is not allowed to back out, backing out of the primer dent allows for the pressure to cause a hole. The hole allows for hot high pressure metal gas to escape.

There is another story about stringing, with no explanation or rational.

F. Guffey
 
How deep does a 25-pound rated rifle firing pin spring drive the pin into a primer before the round fires?

Weak firing pin springs have caused vertical shot stringing for decades. Muzzle velocity spread increases as those springs get too weak.
 
Last edited:
What's more likely : the president of federal had a nightmare that this happened and issued an executive company order the following morning.
 
I thought story was supposed to go that the Fedex or UPS driver threw the box back into the truck after trying to make a delivery and that caused the explosion...:rolleyes:

I'm sure all primer manufacturers will espouse that their primers are the easiest to ignite, hottest particulate, least likely to cause over pressure, etc, best primers around.

I don't use Federal due to the fact that their boxes take up 3 times the space and do not store easily with all the other manufacturer boxes.
 
Does the prosecution doubt the reliability of my information source? During a routine stop at Dillon Precision for bullets/powder/primers I first noticed the large packaging of the Federal Primers and asked the urban legend question. Google nor Bloomberg has anything to do with it.

No offense, but yes - I doubt the reliability of your source. Just because something is overheard at a gun store does not mean it is based in fact - I've heard more yarns told at gun stores than barber shops and fishing camps. Dillon, simply because they are Dillon, would be no exception.

I think Federal packages their primers to be different so that they stand out from the pack. Good for marketing, but I avoid their use because of my disdain for their packaging and how much of a PITA it is to extract primers neatly and efficiently from the packaging when compared to the more cosmopolitan packaging that Wolf, Winchester, CCI, etc. implement.
 
I'd mention what a Federal rep at the Nationals told me why they changed their primer packaging, but few, if any, would believe me.
 
Well Bart go ahead and tell us since so far no one has offered any kind of an educated reason. It must have been a compelling reason since so many consumers dislike the current packaging and it had to have been somewhat costly for Federal to make the changover. Let's put this thing to rest if we can.
 
I'm going to hold my breath until someone asks Federal why. Then posts their answer.

Meanwhile, my face is turning blue. . . .
 
Back
Top