Primers

  • 729 Views
  • Last Post 15 August 2016
billglaze posted this 13 August 2016

Is there any difference between Remington 6-1/2 primers, and Rem. 7-1/2? I don't know why the different number is appended to them, other than Rem. made some obscure change, and, as usual, we users are being treated like mushrooms.I've been using 6-1/2's (still readily available in my area) for some time now, some bought new, others from an ancient stash.Pretty satisfied, but I have some 7-1/2's also, and am driven by curiosity. Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
waksupi posted this 13 August 2016

Bill, shoot some groups with each one. I do see differences in primers.

Attached Files

4060may posted this 13 August 2016

link to primer flash tests http://www.6mmbr.com/PrimerPix.html pretty big difference in some, 6 1/2 are not shown

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 13 August 2016

According to Remington's web site, the 7 1/2's have thicker cups to prevent slam fires with the AR-15 platform rifles. The 6 1/2's were made for 30 carbine and 222 Remington bolt guns. FWIW, Ric

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 13 August 2016

Gentlemen, thanks for your speedy replies. The link supplied was interesting inasmuch as I had, years ago, made a similar test of my own. I recall being surprised at the very different colored flames generated, as well as the different apparent strengths demonstrated. Also, the noise was not to be ignored; it was considerable considering the tiny amounts of compound involved.

Ric, once again I find myself embarrassed by my lack of going to Remington's web site and looking. My question stands hereby answered: if I'm not assuming too much, I believe that, except for the cup thickness, the two primers are the same. As you explained the reason given, it makes perfect sense. I am currently using small rifle primers in the 6 mm. BR, and the .308 Win. Savage mod. 12. Having both numbers on the shelf, I was curious.

Many thanks again to all.

Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 13 August 2016

Bill, I believe you are correct in that the compound is the same brisance and strength. While Federal and Remington use different compounds in their primers, I think that all of their quantities are the same for small rifle.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 14 August 2016

Bill, You shouldn't be embarrassed.  Geezerhood (in my case) and maybe Semi Geezerhood in yours comes with a free pass to say the hell with it.  Once a month I waste time searching the white and yellow of the sorry thing our phone company leaves off for some business or other only to find it easily on line complete with a map for getting there.  I never learn.

Not to take your thread off into whimsyland but the other night I found myself with a pulled bullet in one hand and a case with a primer stuck in the neck in the other. The case had only been reloaded 43 times by actual count and being a depression baby simply throwing the case away was unthinkable.  I usually drill a little hole in the check and get them out, wasting twenty minutes in the process.  In spite of no longer having either my tunnel or a backdoor that was acceptable to shoot out of, on an impulse I chambered it and engaged, as the AR boys say, a plastic trash can at an estimated range of ten feet.

When I didn't hear it bouncing around I looked and found it neatly embedded in the plastic can still perpendicular to the line of flight.  Apparently, an 8” twist didn't overstablize it although a quick estimate of the twist needed was 1: half a furlong.  It would be interesting to compute the sectional density and find the ballistic coefficient of a gas check along with wind drift at 100 yards.

John

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 14 August 2016

John,

Since you have never written anything like that before, I am assuming you are in Oregon? The land of legal pot, rejects from San Francisco and hunting grounds of the anti-BLM folks.

Ric

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 14 August 2016

Ric, Yes, I am in Oregon. But you just haven't been paying attention. I have always been a bit weird.  While in Maine I was once publicly accused of being four standard deviations from the mean.

We like to think of those folks from San Francisco as escapees. John

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 14 August 2016

Ah, yes--San Francisco, once described as the city “where even a man of modest means, can live like a Queen."Thanks for your interest in my baring my “Senior Moments" And for Ric:  I looked at their (Rem.) web site, and noticed that they  had laid out their primers in a table format.I couldn't help but notice, also, that their entry for the 7-1/2 primer was followed by the dreaded letters “B R.”  Wondering if they really consider it Bench Rest caliber?<Har!> Thanks again for all the interest! Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

Premod70 posted this 14 August 2016

CCI 's BR-4 is the same as their 450 except the 450 has a thicker cup. The thicker cup allows the 6mm BR folks the ability to run higher pressures that make that round and the PPC excel.  I do wonder if there is a test that shows any accuracy advantage to changing primer makes at the pressues one uses in cast bullet shooting; I haven't seen it. Whatever gain a primer change would have at the low pressures used by lead bullet shooters could be just as easily brought about by a powder weight change; the node/velocity rules the end result, JMHO.

Dale Flinchum

Attached Files

gpidaho posted this 14 August 2016

I was gifted nearly 3000 CCI 250 magnum primers by my SIL as he doesn't reload any more. (My job now that I'm retired) I use these to load the modest pressure rounds we use with cast bullets (rifle) They work just as well, if not better than the CCI 200s with small charges of fast powder. Gp

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 14 August 2016

I pretty much agree that expecting a quantum change in cast bullets simply by a change of primers, is pretty much a rarity. I go along with what joeb says; don't expect big results from small changes.

Right now, I'm still working on my Savage M 12 with jb's to get an idea of what it likes. I've pretty much stuck with loads that are slower than the considerable velocities that mtngun routinely shoots with cast. (Boy, I admire his zeal!) I've found that the M 12 will routinely shoot in the 2's with this load; (26.5 gr Varget.) I started with 90 gr. Bergers jammed, which I liked for their wind-bucking ability, but I'm shooting indoors at 100 a lot now, so I'm going to try going lighter just to see if the rifle likes them any better. (Unlikely, I would guess, but I'll see.)

No way to figure this stuff out but to do a lot of shooting. (It's a nasty job, but somebody has to do it.)

Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 14 August 2016

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/12/27/best-bullets-brass-primers-powder/>Poll claims CCI #450 favorite among benchrest shooters.

I'm not picky myself except with certain difficult-to-ignite ball powders.  

Attached Files

Wineman posted this 14 August 2016

When Germain Salazar had his blogspot online for everyone, he did some pretty good primer experiments. His reasoning was that the PSI increase he wanted to be from the powder charge and not the primer. His favorites were the PMC (Wolf/Tula??) imports from Russia. They had the least flame and lowest pressure and no real sparks. He liked full cases of stick powders and shot in Arizona for most matches. For my loads I use Wolf 556 for my AR and WLR for cast loads with AL 2400.

Dave

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 14 August 2016

Wineman:Agreed.  So far, I can find no striking difference in primer behaviour, even though the primers seem to have a great deal of difference shot in the darkness of the garage.  Perhaps, (just perhaps) the differences seen don't translate to much of a difference out at the target.As an aside, I can remember when THE primer for .30 cal. shooters, was the old FA #70--it's all many of the shooters used.  Available through the DCM, they were chloride-based, (corrosive) and required special cleaning of the rifle barrel with soap and water.  Still and all, they were pretty much the standard for years.I have been reading a very interesting blog sent to me, that indicates CCI primers to be the lead, by far, among benchresters.  I picked some up the other day, will be using them on a trial basis.

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

Pentz posted this 15 August 2016

I find that CCI 500 SP primers perform best in my 32-20 CPA with AA9 powder. The Remington SR primers are second.

Match Director

Attached Files

Categories
Search
Popular Tags
This Weeks High Earners
Hot Topics
Close