45acp Primer Test Part 1

B

ballman6711

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
1,683
Location
Southern WV
I promised to do a primer test a few weeks ago, so here it is (part 1). All rounds were loaded with my usual load which is as follows:

5.4gr W-231 (all charges weighed on RCBS 505, scale leveled before adding powder)
Acme 185gr swc
Winchester LPP
Mixed brass
1.245" OAL
.968~.9685" Crimp

I loaded 140 rounds for this test, ten each using the following primers:

Small pistol: CCI 500 spp
Fed 100 spp
Fed 200 smp (magnum)
Fed GM 200 M smp (magnum match)

Small rifle:
CCI 400 srp
CCI 450 smrp (magnum)
CCI BR-4 srp (match)
CCI #41 srp (AR-15)
Fed GM 205 MAR srp (Gold Medal match AR-15)

Large pistol:
CCI 300 lpp
CCI 350 lpp
Fed 155 lmp (magnum)
Fed GM 155 M (Gold Medal match)

The previous problem rounds were using the above load with Fiocchi spp. I had enough left over that I didn't make more, but did include them in today's test.

The gun I used is my Kimber Ultra, 3" 45acp. All springs were replaced within the last 500 rounds or so. The gun hasn't been cleaned since the original problem a few weeks ago because I wanted the same basic conditions for a fair comparison, although I did put a few drops of oil on it this morning before going to the range. The original failure to eject problem happened with a temp of 43* F, the second time was about 50* F, today's temp was 37* F.

Pics and results next.

chris
 
Looking at my notes, the Fiocchi small pistol primers ejected about 6", while all the other small pistol primers ejected about 1' or more. The Fiocchi primers also failed to eject the spent brass twice in five rounds fired. The only other primer that had a failure to eject was the CCI 450 small rifle primer, and that was the only primer that had an erratic ejection pattern, all the other primers today ejected very consistently, as I would expect with this gun.

Of special note, the Federal Gold Medal primers (small pistol and rifle, and large pistol) and the CCI BR-4 primers all dropped the spent brass in almost the same spot for the type of primer. So the GMM dropped in about a 6" circle, the BR-4 in a different 6" circle, etc...

The primers were fired in the order listed above, and not the order written on my note page.

chris
 
JFrank said:
How did you determine the identical seating crush per each primer ?
Click to expand...
I don't have a way to measure the seating pressure/crush, and I didn't bother to measure the seating depth below flush. I prime on my single stage press, and once the primer is seated I lean on the lever a bit to ensure below flush seating. All primers are inspected visually, although I didn't measure "below flush" depth.

I loaded 140 rounds for this test, and fired 70. I can measure some of the depths if you'd like. I'll post pics of the rounds loaded in a few minutes.

chris
 
@JFrank Thank you for your comments, they are most appreciated. This is an ongoing "very unscientific" experiment to satisfy my curiousoty, and really nothing more. I will do a part two to this test after a thorough cleaning of my gun. May take another few weeks before I have time to get to the range.

Any other comments or thoughts would be appreciated also, as well as thoughts on how to better conduct part two of this test.

chris
 
ballman6711 said:
@JFrank Thank you for your comments, they are most appreciated. This is an ongoing "very unscientific" experiment to satisfy my curiousoty, and really nothing more. I will do a part two to this test after a thorough cleaning of my gun. May take another few weeks before I have time to get to the range.

Any other comments or thoughts would be appreciated also, as well as thoughts on how to better conduct part two of this test.

chris
Click to expand...
One thought I suppose is that primers may have different compound amounts that could affect the optimum charge for your weapons spring set up with its blow back design and since you did your testing with one powder charge, those different primers may produce a different combustion/pressure’ so to speak’ so that could be one reason that the ejection distance variation.
You could probably build a load around any of the appropriate pistol primers with a bit of charge testing.
Just a thought.
 
Addititional
ballman6711 said:
View attachment 1177965
My notes show how the primers seated based on feel, again I have no way to measure force used.

chris
Click to expand...
ive only tested rifle primers but what I’ve found is that nothing good/consistent happens until the primer is fully seated to the bottom of the pocket, from there we find a crush window of shooting well to shooting poorly, however it does take a bit of distance to really see the results ( short range is tough)
 
JFrank said:
Addititional

ive only tested rifle primers but what I’ve found is that nothing good/consistent happens until the primer is fully seated to the bottom of the pocket, from there we find a crush window of shooting well to shooting poorly, however it does take a bit of distance to really see the results ( short range is tough)
Click to expand...
I was only shooting at about 11 yards instead of my normal 15, and I was only looking for function, and not accuracy. Most of my shots were low left (most likely the way I was holding the gun) in a group about 6". All rounds were fired standing with a two hand grip.

One conclusion I've come to is that my gun functions fine with this load and large pistol primers, but the ejection distance with the small primers certainly shows that I need more powder/pressure to reliably function. Also, I've learned that my gun will set off small rifle primers with no problems.

I do find it interesting (and puzzling) that my CCI 450 rounds had an erratic ejection pattern while all the other large rifle primers had consistent ejection patterns, and that one round failed to eject, although it still cycled the slide enough that it cocked the hammer. I suppose it's possible that I got a brick during the height of the shortage, and that maybe that brick passed minimum QC standards but has an inconsistent amount of primer compound from primer to primer. No way to really know I guess.

chris
 
ballman6711 said:
I was only shooting at about 11 yards instead of my normal 15, and I was only looking for function, and not accuracy. Most of my shots were low left (most likely the way I was holding the gun) in a group about 6". All rounds were fired standing with a two hand grip.

One conclusion I've come to is that my gun functions fine with this load and large pistol primers, but the ejection distance with the small primers certainly shows that I need more powder/pressure to reliably function. Also, I've learned that my gun will set off small rifle primers with no problems.

I do find it interesting (and puzzling) that my CCI 450 rounds had an erratic ejection pattern while all the other large rifle primers had consistent ejection patterns, and that one round failed to eject, although it still cycled the slide enough that it cocked the hammer. I suppose it's possible that I got a brick during the height of the shortage, and that maybe that brick passed minimum QC standards but has an inconsistent amount of primer compound from primer to primer. No way to really know I guess.

chris
Click to expand...
The 450 is a magnum primer. In theory, and as claimed by the industry, that means it has a higher brisance and thicker cup. Either or both could effect case extraction by delaying the case setting back on the primer and/or delaying the primer following the breech face back under recoil.
These are pretty much low pressure loads so anything that interferes with normal movement can have an impact but it also seems like the impact is minor.
 
Thanks for sharing all this info! I’m impressed you had access to so many different primers!
I might have missed it, but did you use mixed HS cases? No chrono data? Looking at the notes, the FED 155 must have some extra juice in them. I’ve only tested CCI 300 vs WLP.
 
ballman6711 said:
View attachment 1177965
My notes show how the primers seated based on feel, again I have no way to measure force used.

chris
Click to expand...

A simple strain gauge or mechanical force gauge can be used for such a test in the future ,IF YOU feel it necessary ?. Thanks for doing the Test . MANY more of us should also be doing some TESTING as well as posting results . :)
 
lordpaxman said:
Thanks for sharing all this info! I’m impressed you had access to so many different primers!
I might have missed it, but did you use mixed HS cases? No chrono data? Looking at the notes, the FED 155 must have some extra juice in them. I’ve only tested CCI 300 vs WLP.
Click to expand...
I've been picking up primers here and there for the last two years or so as I've found them. Mostly I've been looking for large pistol, but at the time I was also loading for guns needing small pistol and small rifle. Earlier this year I started loading 7.62x39, which uses large rifle. I don't have many of those, and I don't expect to find many, if any, but I keep looking.

All mixed HS cases. I didn't have enough of any one HS to test all the small primers. I do have enough large primer cases that I could have used a single HS but I didn't want the large primer brass to have an advantage or a bias. I do realize that using mixed HS introduced a variable that I didn't want, but this test would have taken months and many trips to the range to do with a single HS. Not worth the trouble IMO.

I don't have a chrono, but have been thinking about getting one. I'll have to wait and see what Santa brings me for Christmas. Probably be another lump of coal, which would be ok if I had a stove or fireplace to burn it in. Guess I'll throw it on the pile with the other lumps, LOL!

The Fed 155 ejection distance surprised me as well. I've done a lot of work on this gun to get it to feed, fire, and eject as consistently as possible. It usually throws brass out between 3-4 O'clock, and it lands in the same general area (although when it hits the concrete it bounces everywhere). The fact that it ejected as far as it did certainly suggests more pressure, and since I weighed every charge that can only mean more brisance OR less interior space in the brass. The second is possible, but unlikely over five random cases.

I'll run the test again with the gun clean, hopefully in the next couple of weeks. That's why I made ten rounds using each primer, and only shot five of each. I'm trying to keep everything as consistent as possible, although I've already skewed the results at least somewhat by using mixed HS.

chris
 
It’s too bad we didn’t live closer, I’d supply the chrono. I’m pretty sure based on the ejection distances there’s some differences in something that would equate to velocity. When I do load development I try to use one HS if possible, then for a production run with mixed HS I pick out various HS and retest with the chrono. Unless there’s something vastly different like a stepped case, there’s not too much difference in velocities, at least for 9mm and I wouldn’t think for .45 either. Group size may be a bit different.
If you’re thinking of loading more for some kind of test, PM me, I‘ll look through the stash of cases.
 
lordpaxman said:
If you’re thinking of loading more for some kind of test, PM me, I‘ll look through the stash of cases.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the offer. I still have the rest loaded for part two of the test, basically the same thing but with the gun clean. I may be able to get to the range next week since I unexpectedly got the week off.

I can certainly do another, different test if you'd like, or if anybody wants something else included in this test just let me know.
lordpaxman said:
When I do load development I try to use one HS if possible
Click to expand...
I do the same thing during load development, it takes one more variable out of the equation.

chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Nice to Know...
Replies
19
Views
2K
Walkalong
Walkalong
B
Small primer 45acp with problems
2 3
Replies
64
Views
2K
GeoDudeFlorida
GeoDudeFlorida
Walkalong
  • Locked
9MM Primer Test
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
128
Views
10K
Steve in NC
S
PO2Hammer
  • Locked
Which primer is milder (less hot)?
Replies
7
Views
740
moxie
M
B
45acp primer test, part 2
Replies
3
Views
202
ballman6711
B
Back
Top