At what point would it be reccomend ed to switch over to magnum small rifle primers in .223 reloads. I know if reloading with BLC2 it reccomends magnums. However I am current using H335 and may switch to Benchmark (if I can ever find any) or go back to IMR 4895, which may not be the best but I use it in several other rounds so usually have it on hand and can usually find it easier. Would IMR 4895 benefit from a magnum primer? Generally these loads will be 55 to 6p grain bullets and running at less than max. Earlier loads put together with the 4895 shot quite well, just annoying the way it flows (or doesnt) through the powder dispenser. Other options for powder is IMR 4320 it seems to always be in stock. Although buying a big jug of IMR 4895 may be a better plan. Thoughts?
Magnum Primers in .223
- Thread starter Panfisher
- Start date
The use of magnum primers is usually based on the powder used. The thinking being that ball or spherical powders are more difficult to ignite so a magnum primer is frequently called out. This shows up quite a bit in the Speer #12 manual. For example using powders like 748, AA2460, H335, and BL-C(2) they suggest magnum primers. Using powders like IMR4895, IMR3031, IMR4198, N133 and other stick powders a standard small rifle primer is called out. That said, looking at for example the Hornady 9th Edition the same powders Speer suggested a magnum primer for Hornady suggest a standard Winchester Small Rifle primer for.
I recently tried using four different primers, CCI 400 Small Rifle, CCI 450 Small Rifle Magnum, CCI #41 for 5.56 and CCI BR-4 Bench Rest. The CCI 450 and CCI #41 are both magnum primers. Everything else was identical, H335 Powder 26.1gr. Sierra 53gr. BTHP Match bullets and LC 11 brass all trimmed to 1.750" and all shot over the chronograph in 10 shot groups. The difference wasn't all that great and from my 1:12 twist bolt gun the groups were close in size.
My advice is find a powder and primer you like and work up your loads using whatever your load data suggest. The .223 Remington is not a large high volume cartridge and unless you plan to shoot in Antarctica I would not worry about using magnum primers. Just see what works best for your rifle.
Just My Take
Ron
I recently tried using four different primers, CCI 400 Small Rifle, CCI 450 Small Rifle Magnum, CCI #41 for 5.56 and CCI BR-4 Bench Rest. The CCI 450 and CCI #41 are both magnum primers. Everything else was identical, H335 Powder 26.1gr. Sierra 53gr. BTHP Match bullets and LC 11 brass all trimmed to 1.750" and all shot over the chronograph in 10 shot groups. The difference wasn't all that great and from my 1:12 twist bolt gun the groups were close in size.
My advice is find a powder and primer you like and work up your loads using whatever your load data suggest. The .223 Remington is not a large high volume cartridge and unless you plan to shoot in Antarctica I would not worry about using magnum primers. Just see what works best for your rifle.
Just My Take
Ron
firewrench044
New member
Magnum primers ignite ball powders better
specialty in shorter barreled ARs ( 16 inch and shorter )
Try them
you may need to lower your powder charge with a magnum primer
specialty in shorter barreled ARs ( 16 inch and shorter )
Try them
you may need to lower your powder charge with a magnum primer
I found a little better consistency (ES and SD) with CCI450s when using ball powder (specifically W748 and BL-C2) so I always use them with those. I've started using them with most all of my AR loads (sometimes BR-4) because even though some powders don't really need them, the thicker cup is a little insurance against a slamfire. Read somewhere that CCI does not recommend using 400s for AR15 loads, FWIW. Of course they want to sell the #41s
I did a complete duplicate load development using 55g bullets and H335 in a 16" AR . Only difference was one set used CCI 400 the other used CCI 450 . My results were the opposite as yours . The loads were 23gr through 26gr in .5gr increments . Across the complete load spectrum the 450's had higher ES/SD and had slightly larger groups as a whole . I have all the data recorded in my binder how ever it's a lot to write out . I did post the data once and if I can find it I'll copy and paste it here ( don't hold your breath
)My theory and it's just that "a theory" , is magnum primers and ball powders. are more needed in the larger cases that hold MUCH more powder that needs to be ignited ( 308 , 30-06 , 270 ) to name a few . IMO the 223 just has such low case volume resulting in half the powder needing ignition then the larger cases . Standard primers seem to work just fine in small cases like the 223.
NOTE : Although that was a complete load development test . It was only one comparison test using only one powder . Other powders may very well benefit from magnum primers in 223 . My test on that day showed H335 not needing them .
Last edited:
Just a thought; what would it hurt to buy a brick of magnum primers and try it out? Even if you could not get the groups you want/need, you will have primers on hand for other guns/loads. I have both standard and magnum primers in the 4 sizes and each cartridge load has it's favorite (I have a good load of .38 Special with small pistol magnum primers, and good loads for standard primers, it's all in the work up), 9mm through 30-06...
Nope it certainly wouldn't hurt anything to have some magnum small rifle primers. I have never had or used any but I know where to find them. I see loading manuals showing magnums for BLC2 but didn't see it listed for H335. The majority of the .223 I load for myself and friends are just fun loads, however accurate loads are even more fun.
The following is the result of my little science experiment I mentioned earlier in this thread. When I shot these my concern was more to note velocity over my chronograph than measure the groups so I really was not as focused as I could have been.
Powder: H335
Charge Weight: 26.1 gn.
Cases: LC 11
Bullet: Sierra 53 gn. HP Match King
Case Length: 1.750"
C.O.A.L.: 2.250"
Primer #1 CCI 400 SR
Primer #2 CCI 450 SRM
Primer #3 CCI BR-4 (Bench Rest)
Primer #4 CCI #41
Each of the groups was 10 shots at 100 yards.
Velocities:
Primer #1 3372 FPS
Primer #2 3366 FPS
Primer #3 3384 FPS
Primer #4 3418 FPS
Now consider the CCI 450 (#2) and CCI #41 (#4) are both listed as Magnum SR primers. The only big swing was with the CCI #41 military specification SR primers. Surprisingly the best group came with the CCI #41 and not with the more expensive BR (Bench Rest) primers. The standard CCI 400 shot a higher velocity than the CCI 450 magnum primers.
Like they say, start low and work up. None of the rounds showed any obvious signs of close to pressure limits. They all looked just fine and shot just fine. Looking back to my old Speer #12 manual they always suggested magnum primers using H335 ball powder. Actually "Ball" is a trademark of Olin and "Spherical" is a trademark of Hodgdon so actually as far as useless information goes H335 is a spherical powder. I still have about 15 rounds of each for a future range visit.
Ron
Powder: H335
Charge Weight: 26.1 gn.
Cases: LC 11
Bullet: Sierra 53 gn. HP Match King
Case Length: 1.750"
C.O.A.L.: 2.250"
Primer #1 CCI 400 SR
Primer #2 CCI 450 SRM
Primer #3 CCI BR-4 (Bench Rest)
Primer #4 CCI #41
Each of the groups was 10 shots at 100 yards.
Velocities:
Primer #1 3372 FPS
Primer #2 3366 FPS
Primer #3 3384 FPS
Primer #4 3418 FPS
Now consider the CCI 450 (#2) and CCI #41 (#4) are both listed as Magnum SR primers. The only big swing was with the CCI #41 military specification SR primers. Surprisingly the best group came with the CCI #41 and not with the more expensive BR (Bench Rest) primers. The standard CCI 400 shot a higher velocity than the CCI 450 magnum primers.
Like they say, start low and work up. None of the rounds showed any obvious signs of close to pressure limits. They all looked just fine and shot just fine. Looking back to my old Speer #12 manual they always suggested magnum primers using H335 ball powder. Actually "Ball" is a trademark of Olin and "Spherical" is a trademark of Hodgdon so actually as far as useless information goes H335 is a spherical powder. I still have about 15 rounds of each for a future range visit.
Ron
Am using mostly 748 in 223. Have not tried all the primers, but rem 71/2 gave me noticeably better accuracy than standard Fed or CCI. Also use the Fed mag or CCI 34 in 308 with 748, again getting better accuracy than the standard FED or CCI large rifle primers.
30-30 was another story, with standard Fed 210 primers getting better accuracy than Fed 215 mag, or CCI 34.
It can also may depend on power level u are loading to. Am usually getting better results with ball powder at upper levels.
30-30 was another story, with standard Fed 210 primers getting better accuracy than Fed 215 mag, or CCI 34.
It can also may depend on power level u are loading to. Am usually getting better results with ball powder at upper levels.
Stats Shooter
New member
I use CCI 450 due to a slightly harder anvil to help prevent slam fires. The velocity difference noted can be adjusted with powder selection/ charge weight to compensate. what I take away from his little experiment is: if you have a load deeper near the top of the pressure tolerance range using CCI 400, a switch to CCI 41 could cause an over pressure. So you may need to work the load back up from a few grains below where you were.
Stats Shooter
New member
Oh and my father won't use CCI because he says they are a bit bigger in diameter and stretch the pockets so you can't switch back.
Oh man the pressures on for me to show my work 
. I will say we did two different type of test . It appears you did a primer test with one specific load while I did two different complete load work ups . Only difference was the primers .
I'd redo the BR primers if i were you . That group has quite a bit of vertical stringing which could have been hold or rifle movement rather then primer issue
EDIT I was just looking at my data and the ES/SD from one primer to the other was not that far off with the 450 being about 15fps higher then the 400 . I'll add all the ES/SD for both were quite poor with most ES between 40 & 60fps .
My test also showed higher velocities with the 400 over the 450 which did surprise me
. I will say we did two different type of test . It appears you did a primer test with one specific load while I did two different complete load work ups . Only difference was the primers . I'd redo the BR primers if i were you . That group has quite a bit of vertical stringing which could have been hold or rifle movement rather then primer issue
EDIT I was just looking at my data and the ES/SD from one primer to the other was not that far off with the 450 being about 15fps higher then the 400 . I'll add all the ES/SD for both were quite poor with most ES between 40 & 60fps .
My test also showed higher velocities with the 400 over the 450 which did surprise me
Last edited:
Stats Shooter
New member
As far as the BR4 being "inferior" due to the lowest velocity. What's important is consistency. A good experiment would be weighing each powder charge and ensuring consistent bullet weights by weighing each bullet. And see which has the lowest standard deviation.
That is really the measure of a good primer..... consistency. Because velocity can be +/- by just adding or reducing powder...or changing powder altogether.
That is really the measure of a good primer..... consistency. Because velocity can be +/- by just adding or reducing powder...or changing powder altogether.
metal-god:
I agree as I mentioned earlier initially my goal was just to shoot for logging velocities. My charges were weighed and I tried to keep everything as uniform as possible. Prior to shooting the .223 I had already run some handgun that morning abd about 100 .308 rounds downrange so the groups could likely have been better. Read into that the stringing was likely the guy doing the shooting more than the rifle or ammunition.
As a side note the temperature was about a constant 70 degrees F. that day. Barrel temperature in the shade was right around ambient temperature and shooting 1 round every 45 seconds to 1 min. after about 10 rounds the barrel reached about 95 degrees (just fwd of chamber) and remained there till I finished all 40 rounds I shot.
Maybe next week I'll finish shooting the remaining rounds and give more attention to the actual shooting.
Ron
I agree as I mentioned earlier initially my goal was just to shoot for logging velocities. My charges were weighed and I tried to keep everything as uniform as possible. Prior to shooting the .223 I had already run some handgun that morning abd about 100 .308 rounds downrange so the groups could likely have been better. Read into that the stringing was likely the guy doing the shooting more than the rifle or ammunition.
As a side note the temperature was about a constant 70 degrees F. that day. Barrel temperature in the shade was right around ambient temperature and shooting 1 round every 45 seconds to 1 min. after about 10 rounds the barrel reached about 95 degrees (just fwd of chamber) and remained there till I finished all 40 rounds I shot.
Maybe next week I'll finish shooting the remaining rounds and give more attention to the actual shooting.
Ron