which primer for varget ?
- Thread starter rebs
- Start date
reynolds357
New member
Whatever your reloading data says.
Yep. Stick powders like Varget don't have the super heavy deterrent coating of a spherical powder, so they don't require a magnum primer to ignite. But if your data was developed with a magnum primer, then you can see some performance difference if you don't use one.
For AR's and other semi-autos, there are military sensitivity primers to reduce the chance of getting a slamfire (though they aren't common in the Armalite mechanism). The CCI #41 is the magnum version of a military sensitivity primer. The Federal GM205MAR is a standard primer with military sensitivity.
For AR's and other semi-autos, there are military sensitivity primers to reduce the chance of getting a slamfire (though they aren't common in the Armalite mechanism). The CCI #41 is the magnum version of a military sensitivity primer. The Federal GM205MAR is a standard primer with military sensitivity.
depends on the load, for this one Fed Gold Match worked well as did CCI 450's
https://imgur.com/a/gotJQiV
This was using a Peterson small rifle primer .260 Rem case. In my .223's CCI 400's or 450's work best. You have to do tests like the one above to see what is best for your rifle
https://imgur.com/a/gotJQiV
This was using a Peterson small rifle primer .260 Rem case. In my .223's CCI 400's or 450's work best. You have to do tests like the one above to see what is best for your rifle
In my (limited) experience magnums are no more likely to produce faster FPS than non magnums and I have done several of these tests. Look at the test above and the Fed blue boxes and the Rem 7 1/2s are faster than the CCI 450's. How that correlates to pressure I have no idea. Maybe Uncle Nick can
the Black Spot
New member
I use regular primers
AmmunitionDepot
New member
I would just use regular primers for a .223/5.56 load using Varget. The regular primer won't have any problem igniting the powder charge.
"...magnums are no more likely to..." The only thing that might happen when using a magnum primer for a powder that doesn't require 'em is a slight increase in pressure.
"... The CCI #41 is the magnum version..." CCI's so called "milspec" primers are nothing more than magnum primers. They are not military at all. Brilliant marketing though.
"... The CCI #41 is the magnum version..." CCI's so called "milspec" primers are nothing more than magnum primers. They are not military at all. Brilliant marketing though.
Don Fischer
New member
I use mostly standard primer's for pretty much everything. Once in a while, generally with ball powder, I'll try mag primer's just for grins. Your load with Varget is going to shoot best with whatever primer it shoot's best with! 
good advice Don, main reason I always try the 450 CCI's is because I have a buttload of them from back in the primer drought of 08 when I needed some SRP's and ran across 5 K of them at a good price. So now anytime I do a SRP primer test I throw them in hoping I can find a use for them in anything other than AR15 fodder
RC20 said:
The newer formulations like the Ramshot line say that is the case for them, but if you call Hodgdon and ask about H335, BL-(C2), and H380, they will tell you the formulation they order is identical to what it was in the 1960's when those powders were developed. I think it's a matter of not affecting existing load data and pet loads.
The way I address the question is to run ten with a mild primer, like Federal standard primers, and ten with magnum primers to see which primer produces the lowest velocity SD. If the load density is less than about 100%, I tilt half the cartridges from each load up and half down before gently seating them horizontally. That produces the widest SD I'm going to see. I take low SD as an indicator of consistent ignition.
reynolds357
New member
All depends on powder and load density. I have seen velocity changes switching brands of primers.
hounddawg said:
Your ES numbers are all about 3 time the SD or slightly higher. This is close to ideal for a sample size of 10, so you don't appear to have any outliers in any of your velocity numbers.
I used Excel to run Student's T-test on the velocities on the assumption the extreme spread was equal either side of the mean. I would need the actual velocity data to make this more accurate. But under that assumption there is 52% confidence the differences in average velocities 2,3, and 4 is just random, or, stated the other way around, only 48% confidence the difference would continue to hold up if you fired a larger sample or wouldn't change order if you fired a second set of samples of 10.
The difference between 1 and 2, figured with the same assumptions, is about 90% confidence there is a real and non-random difference in those two average velocities. It doesn't meet the more commonly used 95% standard of confidence for believability, but it's looking good for the CCI 400 providing less vigorous ignition.
In tests I've seen done in the past, the differences between small rifle primers in the .223 have made the Federal out to be milder than the CCI, but as Allan Jones mentioned, primer formulations change more often than people realize and it is never announced. In this instance, you can expect the CCI 400 will be generating less pressurizing gas volume than the others and that will make it a good candidate for the 22 Hornet and other small volume cases that are sensitive to having the primer unseat the bullet before the powder can light up and take over primary responsibility for pressure. This leads to high-velocity ES and poor accuracy from erratic barrel times.
In multiple tests I've looked at or tried myself, small rifle primer choice seems to make a lot more difference to velocity than large rifle primer choice does. Probably just the small case volume issue. If the large primers are used in a small enough case, you probably will see more velocity difference from them.
Mr. O'Heir has been corrected on his statement about the #41 primer before, but chooses to ignore those of us who have called CCI and gotten the skinny direct from the horse's mouth, and continues to post that same erroneous statement. First, CCI does not claim their #41 is a mil-spec primer. CCI does make mil-spec primers, but they have a military part number and go through much more rigorous lot testing than their #41 or other commercial market primers do. They used to list the mil-spec primers on their website among their other primers but have taken them off the page, probably because they got tired of non-military customers asking to buy them. The #41 and #34 primers sold commercially are labeled as primers for military rifles. They are, according to CCI made with the same cups and priming mix and priming mix quantity as their #450 and #250 small and large magnum rifle primers. However, the anvils in the #41 and #34 are different. These special anvil legs have a wider spread angle than the anvils in the #450 and #250 do. This reduces their sensitivity, putting it in line with the military sensitivity H-test specification, below. This sensitivity reduction is intended to mitigate the odds of a slamfire or an OOB firing event in guns with floating firing pins. I've never had one, but board member Slamfire has experienced and documented these events in past posts. That was good enough for me to switch to these primers for the Garand, M1A, and AR.
I will see if I can find it. None of my manuals list magnum primers for the Ball powders which would seem to back that up.
I can see the characteristics being held but the reluctant to go fooom without a magnum primer eliminated.
Still ogling the LAB chrono before I get back into taking velocities. My Chrony just up and quit from one session to the next and I am still in mourning (I was quite proud I managed to crease the metal on the top and not kill it and then 3 years latter it quit, grrrr)
LAB is pricey but not having to deal with the setup out front and holding up the firing line priceless - will have to see if the range will buy them as they lend that stuff out and as long as you don't break it no fee.