That is an interesting article until I click on one of the links at the bottom. I get this message:
"The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable."
I assume the load data is there?
Well, I did it - used magnum pistol primers in .45 ACP loads
- Thread starter cdoc42
- Start date
That is an interesting article until I click on one of the links at the bottom. I get this message:
"The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable."
I assume the load data is there?
Went back and looked at the OP and caught something I missed before...
You used the primers AND full/nearly full powder charges!!! and capped that off with a styrofoam "plug" for a "bullet".
Might want to check your barrel for a Styrofoam coating!!
Compared to a bullet, styrofoam is incredibly light, incredibly brittle, and melts at an extremely low temperature.
To cap a blank, I would expect better results from (heavy) "paper" cap glued in place.
Just out of curiosity, what does one of your styrofoam "wadcutters" weigh?? How many grains?
is it even 1/10th what a bullet weighs?? less??
I also doubt that your taper crimp had any effect. I doubt any crimp would have any effect on holding styrofoam in place with the pressure of a primer and powdercharge igniting behind it.
You used the primers AND full/nearly full powder charges!!! and capped that off with a styrofoam "plug" for a "bullet".
Might want to check your barrel for a Styrofoam coating!!
Compared to a bullet, styrofoam is incredibly light, incredibly brittle, and melts at an extremely low temperature.
To cap a blank, I would expect better results from (heavy) "paper" cap glued in place.
Just out of curiosity, what does one of your styrofoam "wadcutters" weigh?? How many grains?
is it even 1/10th what a bullet weighs?? less??
I also doubt that your taper crimp had any effect. I doubt any crimp would have any effect on holding styrofoam in place with the pressure of a primer and powdercharge igniting behind it.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The links don't work for me.
"404 - File or directory not found."
Firefox 102.14.0esr
"404 - File or directory not found."
Firefox 102.14.0esr
I was curious too. Approaching with an abundance of caution. Fair enough.
During the great shortage of 2013, I ran really low on standard CCI 500's and so I loaded my low pressure 38 Special target loads with 550's. Didn't even hesitate. Same loading, other than the primer. At the range, they shot the same. I didn't even bother to chronograph them.
I know it's a bit of an apples n oranges comparison, but I think it still applies enough in the case of modest loadings of 45 ACP.
Things change with high pressure recipes, of course.
44, you missed more than you think.
I DID NOT load "full" charges with a styrofoam plug. There was NO powder under the plug.
"I also doubt that your taper crimp had any effect. I doubt any crimp would have any effect on holding styrofoam in place with the pressure of a primer and powder charge igniting behind it."
My goal of taper crimping was to be sure the bell I made prior to the insertion of the "bullet", as usual, would not prevent the "cartridge" from engaging the action.
I DID NOT load "full" charges with a styrofoam plug. There was NO powder under the plug.
"I also doubt that your taper crimp had any effect. I doubt any crimp would have any effect on holding styrofoam in place with the pressure of a primer and powder charge igniting behind it."
My goal of taper crimping was to be sure the bell I made prior to the insertion of the "bullet", as usual, would not prevent the "cartridge" from engaging the action.
I've got a bag full of 38-caliber wax bullets waiting to do exactly that when I can buy samples of a couple of CCI primers I don't have but want for the test. You have to sacrifice the cases to the flash hole drill, drilling them out to 1/8" to prevent primer back-out that would jam the test revolver, but it's worth a few cases.
My guess is, absent the equipment necessary to prevent you from destroying your valuable gun or you as the owner, is to simply reduce the load from whatever combination of standard primer, powder, and bullet produced the result you are now happy with, using final accuracy and comfort as a guideline to the replacement of the primer.
The Winchester Primers should stimulate a query rather than an acceptance. If they can make a primer that is useful for both standard and magnum loads,......what are we missing from the manufacturers who produce "standard" and "Magnum" primers?
The recent escalation of component prices resulted in at least one primer manufacturer advising an acceptable use of Small Rifle to replace the paucity of supply of Small Pistol Primers. But caution is advised in opening that door to the use of similar combinations if we lack the understanding of primer-mix, cup dimensions, and other factors that are essentially "above our pay grade" as handloaders compared to manufacturing experts.
And so, I only put my toe into the water of investigation when I decided to compare standard and magnum primers in the .45 ACP. Anything other than styrofoam bullets might have been more intellectually acceptable, but I just wanted some sense of how far the timer would send both "bullets" to a spot in the field of discovery. If they landed a distance of 2 feet apart vs 20 feet, well, I might have discontinued this experiment and waited for a better price on standard LPPs........
The Winchester Primers should stimulate a query rather than an acceptance. If they can make a primer that is useful for both standard and magnum loads,......what are we missing from the manufacturers who produce "standard" and "Magnum" primers?
The recent escalation of component prices resulted in at least one primer manufacturer advising an acceptable use of Small Rifle to replace the paucity of supply of Small Pistol Primers. But caution is advised in opening that door to the use of similar combinations if we lack the understanding of primer-mix, cup dimensions, and other factors that are essentially "above our pay grade" as handloaders compared to manufacturing experts.
And so, I only put my toe into the water of investigation when I decided to compare standard and magnum primers in the .45 ACP. Anything other than styrofoam bullets might have been more intellectually acceptable, but I just wanted some sense of how far the timer would send both "bullets" to a spot in the field of discovery. If they landed a distance of 2 feet apart vs 20 feet, well, I might have discontinued this experiment and waited for a better price on standard LPPs........
Why do you think we are missing anything??? Or do you mean you are missing the reasoning behind making two different primers when Win only makes one?
To me, it seems obvious that Winchester believes their primers are adequate for either task and that is the best way to proceed.
I suspect other makers make their primers more specifically suited for one task or the other, and believe that is the best way to proceed.
^ That the various manufacturers believe the best way to proceed is a rather generic answer to the question. It may well be applicable to a marketing campaign, but it doesn't answer a more scientific question. If we are advised to lower a given charge by changing from a standard to a magnum powder due to a difference in pressure, why don't we have a similar advisory with respect to potential pressure excursions with the Winchester primers?
We are advised to reduce powder charges when we change ANY component.
Load data worked up using Winchester primers is worked up using winchester primers, what kind of warning beyond that do you think is needed??
The entire point of reducing the load when changing any component is that, while we can assume, and even calculate, that things should be safe, we cannot know for certain they will be, until test firing demonstrates it. Its just a prudent precaution as a general practice.
Every load combination and every gun has the potential to be different, and no one but you knows how your stuff behaves. Both ends of the bell curve exist, and no one knows where their specific combination of factors fits, until they are tested by firing.
I don't recall Remington having a separate Large Pistol Magnum primer, either. 2½ is it, I believe. This will likely mean they've tried different formulations and didn't really improve on what they already had. Same for Winchester. Other brands with other design parameters found things to be otherwise.
Allan Jones points out that manufacturers employ different methods of differentiating their magnum and standard primers, some by using different quantities of the same materials and some by changing fuel and sensitizer ingredient ratios, and these don't have the same effects. Hartmut Broemel, the author of the QuickLOAD program, mentions that he's seen magnum primers both increase and reduce velocity and pressure with some loads.
There is a really interesting table on page 130 of the 2013 Norma manual. This manual drills down a lot deeper into component details and performance and the effects of conditions on them than others do. It shows a comparison of RWS, Federal, CCI, Remington, and Winchester primer in a 300 Win Mag. At 25°C (77°F), the velocity difference is a little over 1%, and the peak pressure difference is about 3.4%. But when you get to -40° (same value for C or F, as -40 is where the two scales cross over), the velocity spread grows to 5%, and the peak pressure spread to 15%, with the Federal 215 holding velocity and pressure up significantly better than any of the others.
Allan Jones points out that manufacturers employ different methods of differentiating their magnum and standard primers, some by using different quantities of the same materials and some by changing fuel and sensitizer ingredient ratios, and these don't have the same effects. Hartmut Broemel, the author of the QuickLOAD program, mentions that he's seen magnum primers both increase and reduce velocity and pressure with some loads.
There is a really interesting table on page 130 of the 2013 Norma manual. This manual drills down a lot deeper into component details and performance and the effects of conditions on them than others do. It shows a comparison of RWS, Federal, CCI, Remington, and Winchester primer in a 300 Win Mag. At 25°C (77°F), the velocity difference is a little over 1%, and the peak pressure difference is about 3.4%. But when you get to -40° (same value for C or F, as -40 is where the two scales cross over), the velocity spread grows to 5%, and the peak pressure spread to 15%, with the Federal 215 holding velocity and pressure up significantly better than any of the others.
dunno if this is pertinent, but I have used Magnum primers in my
low velocity Bullseye loads in 45 for a long time if that was all I had-never noticed any difference at the range, although I did not
chrono any. I will drag out the chrono next time and see if there is any difference in loads: 3.8gr of N310 behind 185gr SWC, which
the charts say is about 750fps
low velocity Bullseye loads in 45 for a long time if that was all I had-never noticed any difference at the range, although I did not
chrono any. I will drag out the chrono next time and see if there is any difference in loads: 3.8gr of N310 behind 185gr SWC, which
the charts say is about 750fps
I agree, but that is not the intent originally addressed in this post. If you have enough of whatever primers are used in the various accepted recipes, then your position is valid.
The point of my post was that the current financial environment with respect to ammunition as well as other staples of common need, presents the question regarding primer exchange in the face of past common sense experiences that followed the advice of the manufacturers. Then CCI, to their credit, addressed the issue by revealing their own study that advised Small Rifle Primers could be safely used in Small Pistol loads. The difference was explained by a thicker primer cup in Rifle primers to accommodate the firing pin acceleration difference between handguns and rifles and presented a cautionary note that a given small pistol might not have the required energy to fire the rifle primer. That is not a usual safety issue.
It is not unexpected that a future inquiry would involve other implementation issues regarding the use of standard vs magnum primers, especially, in fact, when Winchester has a dual-action standard/magnum primer available without any explanation as to why it might be just as safe as exchanging all other standards for magnums that would be based on COST considerations, not practical applications, associated with firearm dynamics.
The point of my post was that the current financial environment with respect to ammunition as well as other staples of common need, presents the question regarding primer exchange in the face of past common sense experiences that followed the advice of the manufacturers. Then CCI, to their credit, addressed the issue by revealing their own study that advised Small Rifle Primers could be safely used in Small Pistol loads. The difference was explained by a thicker primer cup in Rifle primers to accommodate the firing pin acceleration difference between handguns and rifles and presented a cautionary note that a given small pistol might not have the required energy to fire the rifle primer. That is not a usual safety issue.
It is not unexpected that a future inquiry would involve other implementation issues regarding the use of standard vs magnum primers, especially, in fact, when Winchester has a dual-action standard/magnum primer available without any explanation as to why it might be just as safe as exchanging all other standards for magnums that would be based on COST considerations, not practical applications, associated with firearm dynamics.