Are BR4 primers worth the extra cost?


PDA






karnaaj
November 9, 2007, 02:38 PM
Been reading on the net recommendations on using BR4 primers instead of standard small rifle primers but sheesh, $15/box more?
Right now the only thing I'm loading rifle wise is .223.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are BR4 primers worth the extra cost?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rcmodel
November 9, 2007, 03:04 PM
IMO: No, they are not worth the cost for normal reloading requirements.

Of all the things that can go wrong with your reloads that effect accuracy, Bench-Rest primer selection is pretty far down the list.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j219/rcmodel/KTOG/1224.gif
rcmodel

Don't Tread On Me
November 9, 2007, 03:38 PM
I got a bad batch of them. One shot in a string would go 200fps faster than the rest. Thought it was me until an author in Handloader Magazine discovered the same thing when testing small rifle primers (in .223).

langenc
November 9, 2007, 03:41 PM
Depends what the resulting ammo is being used for but generally NO.

Cougfan2
November 9, 2007, 03:43 PM
Unless you are a true bench rest shooter they're not worth the money. for most rifles that are used for hunting or plinking, you're just not going to see much difference.

Walkalong
November 9, 2007, 04:44 PM
During the primer shortage (the real one) quite a number of years ago many Benchresters went to Winchester standard small rifle primers when we could not get Federal Match primers. Most said they could not tell the difference and some never went back to Federal Match primers once they were available again.

ocabj
November 9, 2007, 04:51 PM
I use CCI BR4 in my competition loads and CCI 400 in my practice loads. I've never really done any comparison check as far accuracy or velocity consistency, but I also use a different upper for practice than I do in competition. It's about $10 more per 1K brick, and I do it more for peace of mind.

If you want a good BR primer, then get Remington 7-1/2. The only reason I don't use them is because they are always in short supply, especially in the past year and a half.

Winchester primers are fine, except I have experienced more frequency primer piercing and primer cup/anvil separation when loading ammo with them for the AR. That's why I switched to CCI (for small rifle - AR).

dcloco
November 9, 2007, 05:44 PM
no...absolutely, without a doubt...NOT worth the extra money.

Grumulkin
November 9, 2007, 07:40 PM
A recent Handloader Magazine article documented improved accuracy with bench rest primers. Remington small rifle bench rest primers were better than the CCI & Federal versions so they're what I'll be using.

GaryL
November 9, 2007, 11:29 PM
A recent Handloader Magazine article documented improved accuracy with bench rest primers. Remington small rifle bench rest primers were better than the CCI & Federal versions so they're what I'll be using.Does Remington advertise in that particular handloader mag? Not saying they are biased, but hot rodders have known for a long time that auto rags have a strong tendancy to bias results towards their advertisers. It's not that the data is bad, but the test conditions often favor the featured product.

dcloco
November 10, 2007, 01:04 AM
I have a couple hundred targets and chrono printouts, that indicate BR2's, BR4's, Rem 7.5's, 9.5's, etc, etc....are actually less accurate and consistent that Fed 205, 205M's, CCI 250 & 450's.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are BR4 primers worth the extra cost?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!