Magnum primers.....again!

sakorick · October 12, 2007, 03:52:38 PM

I have run into a person who claims a magnum primer in a 30'06 tightens up his groups. Now, far be it from me to rain on anyone's parade, however, I have done some rather extensive testing with Magnum primers and have not seen tighter groups or faster velocities while using the magnum primers in the 30'06 0r for that matter, the 7mm Mag. What say you the brain trust???? What has been your experience??
Regards, Rick.

Daryl (deceased) · October 12, 2007, 04:55:33 PM

I've always used standard primers in the '06 based cartridges, and magnums in the 7mm mag.

My loads shoot good that way, and I haven't changed back and forth to be able to say for sure.

But...

I've experienced different accuracy from different brands of primers. I can't imagine that magnum vs standard wouldn't make a difference on some cartridges, in some rifles, at least once in a while.

A lot could depend on the powder that's used. Slower burning powder would likely burn easier with the magnum primers. I know it makes a difference using H110 in the .45 Colt. Standard primers are not as consistent.

Too many variables to say for every scenario, for sure.

Daryl

Paul Hoskins · October 12, 2007, 05:40:49 PM

I have never had any need for magnum primers in the cartridges I load. However I don't own any guns that require a magnum primer. It has been my expierence that in Mauser type cartridges, magnum primers are not needed. I tried them in the 22/6mm AI and it sure didn't work. Maybe in one particular gun it will be marginally better but it would be the exception. It would also depend on the type of powder used. For machine gun powder, in most cases a mag. primer would work best. I don't know of anyone that loads ordinary cartridges with machine gun powder tho. In the first place it is too slow to be practical. Some people shoot one small group accidentally and conclude that is the best load then wonder what happened later when their groups scatter all over the board.............Paul H

recoil junky · October 12, 2007, 06:12:43 PM

With the old tried and true H4350 in the '06 A.I. Enfield it might make difference because I'm burning 60.5 grains of said powder with 165's. BUT, I wouldn't want to try magnum primers due to the added pressure they might cause.

Now, that being said I might try them in the 35 Whelen with the same amount of H4350 and 250's. Why? well because even with that much powder there are still "0" signs of pressure, but the bullet is traveling in the neighborhood of only 2450 - 2500 fps and size of the hole in the barrel lends itself to the relief of pressure anyway.

Now some of you old farts can correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking but magnum primers were explained to me this way:

A magnum primer has a "hotter" ignition for theses reasons:

1. The "flame" will travel futher onto the powder charge thereby igniting the
powder closer to the front, burning more of the powder in the case instead of pushing it down the barrel as it burns.

2. It takes a hotter "flame" to get all that slow burning powder started burning than it does a faster powder.

Which raises the question about using a small rifle magnum primer with H335 in your .223. I was told to try this as it would eliminate the problem I was having with blown primers in hot weather. (I've since found this to be, well, cow poo) The "informant" was under the assumption that magnum primers were "thicker" than standard primers. This may or may not be true but it didn't cure the blown primer problem, it made the bolt rather hard to open plus the primers would still blow , given the right circumstances, ie heat and number of shots and how long the round sat in a hot chamber. Very frustrating when villenous rodents are coming right for you. My cure to the problem? Change powders. Benchmark doesn't do this and my velocities got higher and groups got smaller.

As for the magnum primer in the '06 making your groups smaller? Well, in that particular rifle, with a particular powder and bullet combination it could very well happen.

As for me I'm sticking to what the manuals say and what has been working for me for the last 30 some years of reloading.

RJ

Paul Hoskins · October 12, 2007, 07:07:26 PM

RJ, if primers were already blowing, that tells me something. Switching to magnum primers using the same powder charge, it's no wonder the bolt got sticky. It's a wonder things didn't start coming apart. Another thing I might point out, just because the bore is bigger doesn't mean the pressure will be less. You are pushing much more weight and getting more bore friction. Pressure does funny things to anything when it's high enough. Observe these pics. and beware...............Paul H

RatherBHuntin · October 14, 2007, 05:19:43 PM

I've tried both Mag and Standard primers in my AR with H335 and couldn't tell a difference. Accuracy and velocity were basically the same, maybe just a tad better with Standard. Same goes for .357 Mag, no need for mag primers

Paul Hoskins · October 14, 2007, 05:40:17 PM

RBH, cartridges like the 223 don't need magnum primers. Remington brought out their small mag. primers because their standard primers wouldn't stand up to the pressure generated by the 17 Rem. ...........Paul H

sakorick · October 14, 2007, 06:18:55 PM

Quote from: Paul Hoskins;67303RJ, if primers were already blowing, that tells me something. Switching to magnum primers using the same powder charge, it's no wonder the bolt got sticky. It's a wonder things didn't start coming apart. Another thing I might point out, just because the bore is bigger doesn't mean the pressure will be less. You are pushing much more weight and getting more bore friction. Pressure does funny things to anything when it's high enough. Observe these pics. and beware...............Paul H

Hello Paul......Thank you, thank you.....I rest my case. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Folks, the bottom line is to use magnum primers where the manual says they are called for.......don't use them in your 270 or 30'06 etc. A few magnums may be an exception, however, I'm not sure....stick with what the book says! If you opt to use them.....go slow. It is a temptation as they don't cost anymore than the standard primers. Regards, Rick.

RatherBHuntin · October 14, 2007, 06:42:03 PM

Quote from: Paul Hoskins;67377RBH, cartridges like the 223 don't need magnum primers. Remington brought out their small mag. primers because their standard primers wouldn't stand up to the pressure generated by the 17 Rem. ...........Paul H

There is a note in one of my manuals that says to use Mag primers with the ball powders. As I said, MVs and Accuracy didn't require them, so I don't use them. I don't know how it affected pressure.

Brithunter · October 15, 2007, 12:08:49 AM

Hi All,

I seem to recall that it's Speers Manuals that say to use Magnum Primers with ball powders. Now I use BLC-2 and H335 both of which are ball powders with normal primers either WLR or Rem 9 1/2 although I did end up with some CCI Large Rifle primers even though I don't like CCI primers much. Have never had a proble with ignigtion.

I have wondered if this is a little Dig at Hodgdons by Blount who of course own Speer? of course now that Hodgdons owns IMR it makes Blounts position a little more delicate on this. On one of the best loads I ever found for my first .270 BSA CF2 Stutzen rifel was using Olin's Win 760 powder which is ball powder however I could never get any more of the powder

.

subsonic · October 15, 2007, 06:52:59 AM

The only experience I have with magnum primers was compareing CCI 300 to CCI 350 (magnum) in my 5.5" Bisley .45 Colt with 21-22gr of H4227 Powder behind a 335gr WLNGC LBT bullet, yeilding around 1100-1200fps. Nothing like a .30-06....

The magnum primers increased velocity around 30-50fps and increased pressure signs. Accuracy was about the same (of course this is hand-held, 25yds, iron sights, and pretty stout recoil). The one thing I did notice was that recoil seemed quite a bit different, when shooting loads with the same velocity, ie, standard primer and a bit more powder, vs mag primer and less powder. The mag primers seemed to make the gun twist harder and the recoil was more snappy, sometimes kicking the loading gate open a small amount. It seemed like there was slightly more unburned powder with the standard primers.

All loads tested shot under 2" at 25yds, which I consider **** good, all variables considered.

recoil junky · October 16, 2007, 07:38:28 AM

Paul, the .223 shot fine with the first 8-10 rounds. It's after that and on hot days is when I'd have trouble. That's the nature of H335. Especially with loads that are on the verge of being too hot. Not maximum loads mind you, just close to it. Hence the switch to Benchmark and staying with Federal small rifle primers.

As for the 35 Whelen? Well H4350 is not even listed in most manuals as a powder of choice. Hodgons doesn't even recomend it because "it does not create enough pressure". Well I've fond it to work much better than the "all time best powder for the 35 Whelen" which is supposed to be IMR4064. I've been tempted to try magnum primers with a 5% reduced load of H4350 and work up if there are no signs of pressure.

RJ

gitano · October 19, 2007, 03:51:42 PM

My experience has been that magnum primers offer little to no advantage over "regular" primers. HOWEVER, magnum primers do have a role. What RJ said regarding the flame is essentially the point, but I don't think the flame is "hotter" it's just more intense, with "intense" meaing moving faster. The goal (as I understand it), is to ignite more of the powder faster in cases with very large (magnum) capacities. The use of magnum primers may be more appropriate these days than days-gone-by, due to the really slow powders available today.

As far as I'm concerned, magnum or regular matters not. What shoots the smallest group is what gets the nod. As for increased pressure... lower the charge. Geez, it's not rocket science. Magnum primers cost exactly the same as "regular" primers, so if I can use less powder and get the same muzzle velocity by using a magnum primer, AND get the same group sizes, why wouldn't I? That is a big "AND" though.

Paul

Paul Hoskins · October 19, 2007, 04:59:56 PM

I remember reading something CCI published years ago that said their magnum primers had a longer flash duration than standard primers. Not necessarily hotter. ...........Paul H

Alton R Dillon · October 20, 2007, 06:04:47 PM

I just wanted to say that I started using mag primers in my loads for a 30-06 with all types of powder and bullets about 40+ yrs ago . I was told by a friend who was a government hunter, that it would help ignition in the wet weather or if you were out in the snow storm or had to be out in really cold weather, like elk hunting. This has seemed to work well for me. I have never had a miss-fire with one of my loads , I cannot say that about winchester ammo. I always watched for pressure signs when working up a load for any of my rifles .
The reason I feel badly about winchester ammo is because on one trip we bought some on sale and used it for an elk hunt, 2 boxes that produced serveral misfires. I guess the primers were duds . But when a bull elk hears that CLICK he is on his way like a bolt of lightning!
later in life I bought some 300 win mag, ammo on sale too. 180, and 150's the 180's were fine but the primers would blow on the 150's
I cannot see why you wouldn't want to increase your chance of success in the field. Just be cautious if you are doing somthing that is suspected to have dangerous results.
I would like to relate that in my .243 that there is a lot of difference in pressure just by using different primers, so perhaps there could be a problem with some guns , where you have a max load and then by mistake throw in a mag primer. :)