6.5 Creedmoor brass - Hornady vs. Lapua

[Joe Texas]

I’ve seen many ask how switching from Hornady (LRP) 6.5 Creedmoor brass to Lapua (SRP) brass affects the powder charge needed to find the node in an already developed load.

My findings:

• I reduced powder charge 1.1 grain from my good Hornady brass charge and worked up in .2 grain increments from there.

• In four different loads I had developed in Hornady brass with three different bullets and two different powders, a reduction of .7 grains from my Hornady charge was where the sweet spot was.

• One bullet that was mediocre accuracy wise in the Hornady brass really tightened up in the Lapua srp brass.

• The other three loads were already pretty good and stayed about the same accuracy wise.

All loads with Hornady brass/Fed 210M primers and Lapua brass/Fed 205M primers:
• 136 Lapua Scenar-L
Hornady - 41.6 H4350
Lapua - 40.9 H4350
Hornady - 44.1 N555
Lapua 43.4 N555

• 139 Lapua Scenar/H4350
H- 41.6
L - 40.9

142 Sierra Matchking/H4350
H - 41.0
L - 40.3

* This was in my gun. Yours may be different. Start low within published data and work up. Turn around, don’t drown. Don’t run with scissors.

Anyway, in case it helps someone else, this was my experience switching between the two.

 

[AJC1]

So one could extrapolate that the lapua brass was thicker and had less case volume...

 

[Joe Texas]

So one could extrapolate that the lapua brass was thicker and had less case volume...

It’s my understanding the the H2O capacity is about 53.5 grains for the Hornady and 52.5 for the Lapua.

 

[wbm]

I use both....have not found enough difference to spend more for the Lapua so I don't.

 

[Joe Texas]

I use both....have not found enough difference to spend more for the Lapua so I don't.

The Hornady I have is all once-fired range pick ups so the price was right for sure.

I’m gonna use the Lapua for the load that showed the marked improvement and keep using Hornady for the others I think. I’ve started annealing every firing and haven’t lost a piece to splitting yet. Only a couple of primer pockets have loosened a bit.

 

[Poper]

I noticed you used different primers in your loads, too. That may make a difference, too. Apples-to-apples and such. To get accurate data, you should only change 1 variable at a time.

I know if I change from CCI-200 to CCI-250 primers in my pet .270 Win. load, accuracy goes to pieces. From 2.75" at 500 meters to more than 12" at 500 meters.
Again, YMMV.

 

[Joe Texas]

I noticed you used different primers in yoour loads, too. That may make a difference, too. Apples-to-apples and such. To get accurate data, you should only change 1 variable at a time.

I know if I change from CCI-200 to CCI-250 primers in my pet .270 Win. load, accuracy goes to pieces. From 2.75" at 500 meters to more than 12" at 500 meters.
Again, YMMV.

• Hornady brass has large primer pockets.
• The Lapua brass I used has small primer pockets.
• Federal 210 Match Large Rifle Primers were used in the Hornady brass.
• Federal 205 Match Small Rifle Primers were used in the Lapua brass.
• The difference in the primers IS part of the difference baked into this discussion.

 

[Poper]

• Hornady brass has large primer pockets.
• The Lapua brass I used has small primer pockets.
• Federal 210 Match Large Rifle Primers were used in the Hornady brass.
• Federal 205 Match Small Rifle Primers were used in the Lapua brass.
• The difference in the primers IS part of the difference baked into this discussion.

That would seem to be an apples and oranges comparison, then, would it not? There is no way to know if the difference you experience between the loads is the brass or the the primer or a combination of the two. I am certain there will be a combination that will shoot considerably better than the other, but exactly why, nobody will ever know exactly why.

 

[Joe Texas]

That would seem to be an apples and oranges comparison, then, would it not? There is no way to knpw if the difference you excperience between the loads is the brass or the the primer or a combination of the two. I am certain there will be a combination that will shoot considerably better than the other, but exactly why, nobody will ever know exactly why.

Comments like this are the reason I stopped posting on THR. Do you even load for a .264 cartridge? The reason I posted my findings was to help those that do, not give you a forum for pointing out the obvious.

I understand what you are saying but what you don’t seem to understand is that the discussion of the difference between the two takes the small/large primer difference into account already. Prove me wrong. Put the same primer in both, go shoot ‘em and report back. You can’t, right? So why do you insist on trolling this thread?

 

[Poper]

Comments like this are the reason I stopped posting on THR. Do you even load for a .264 cartridge? {Yes, I currently load for 6.5x55, 6.5WSSM and 6.5-.300WSM. In the past have loaded for .260 Remington and 6.5 Carcano, too.}The reason I posted my findings was to help those that do, not give you a forum for pointing out the obvious.

I understand what you are saying but what you don’t seem to understand is that the discussion of the difference between the two takes the small/large primer difference into account already. {I do not believe it can as there are multiple variables involved. The direct comparison is invalid unless you can show the math that supports your hypothesis.} Prove me wrong. {No, you must prove yourself correct. It is your thesis, the burden of correctness is on you.} Put the same primer in both, go shoot ‘em and report back. You can’t, right?{Exactly why your hypothesis is invalid.} So why do you insist on trolling this thread?

Nobody is trolling your thread.
I was meerly pointing out that the comparison you are attempting to make is improper at best and worthless at worst. (No insult intended.) The comparison is only related as a development of two different work-ups because as we have been taught and learned in our reloading careers, changing one component and/or one component LOT can have a significant difference on a given recipe performance.
Now, if through experimentation and documentation, (a valid experiment uses the scientific method of "state a hypothesis. Then prove or disprove said hypothesis through experimentation that can be repeated for the same result") you want to demonstrate that there is a significant difference in the peformance of a paricular firearm using two different load recipes. I can buy into that as an interesting exercise that is rewarding for that particular firearm. Or even that a particular firearm has a preference for a particular recipe, ok. It does not demonstrate anything more than that. If that hurts your feelings, so it does, and I will apologize for having done so. I hope this is helpful.
JMHO, YMMV.

 

[horsemen61]

Me I like laupua better but that’s just me ymmv

 

[Poper]

I submit the initial testing sample and methodology is inadequate to provide any real useable data. (BTW, I am NOT a testing expert.)
Now, what if we take your hypothesis and use 4 or 5 different brands of primers (both magnum and non-magnum) in each brand of brass, using identical powders and bullets, bullet seating and annealing the brass after each firing? Document all of the materials, methods and proceedures, tabulate all of the results, then I believe we will find some significance in the data. It may be a definite preference for a particular brass / primer combination, it may show a definite relationship between manum and non-magnum primers. Or it may show no significant difference.
It would be an interesting exercise, to be sure.

 

[Joe Texas]

I submit the initial testing sample and methodology is inadequate to provide any real useable data. (BTW, I am NOT a testing expert.)
Now, what if we take your hypothesis and use 4 or 5 different brands of primers (both magnum and non-magnum) in each brand of brass, using identical powders and bullets, bullet seating and annealing the brass after each firing? Document all of the materials, methods and proceedures, tabulate all of the results, then I believe we will find some significance in the data. It may be a definite preference for a particular brass / primer combination, it may show a definite relationship between manum and non-magnum primers. Or it may show no significant difference.
It would be an interesting exercise, to be sure.

Ok. Imma try one last time.

• Both brass is made for the 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge.

• The Hornady brass has a LARGE primer pocket.

• The Lapua brass has a SMALL primer pocket.

• The comparison is with the same bullet and powder. The primer CANNOT be the same because the two I’m comparing have different size primer pockets.

• There would ALWAYS be two variables in the comparison. One variable however, is always constant - the primer type in each.

• Both types of brass were trimmed to the same length and prepped the same way. The Lapua brass was new so I didn’t anneal it. It was neck sized and chamfered the same way the Hornady brass was.

• If the new/fire-formed difference is significant, then it may make a difference. I personally haven’t had to significantly re-work up a load because of using fire-formed brass. If anything, it just tightens a bit compared to the first firing of new brass

• The variable being deliberately changed for the comparison is only the powder charge.

• I found it interesting that a reduction of .7 grain was constant across 4 different loads. Maybe that’s a coincidence. Maybe it is significant.

• What is significant for sure is the about 1.05 grain H2O capacity difference between the two. (Another constant with consistent brass prep)

Anyway, in my effort to answer the question that is often asked about how much the powder charge must be reduced from Hornady to Lapua srp 6.5 Creedmoor brass to achieve the same velocity, my answer is “about 3/4 of a grain but go down twice that and work up to be safe.”

I’m not claiming to know everything. I’m only sharing my experience as one real-world data point. I post what I had hoped to find online but didn’t in an effort to help someone else, not to one-up somebody.

Load data can span 4 grains from start charge to max. To start all the way from scratch is expensive and maybe unnecessary. It would be nice if you have an established load in Hornady brass and could only go down 1-1.5 grains or so and work back up, right? That’s all I was saying.

If the info I post is unsafe, then by all means, argue. If not, then all you are doing is entertaining yourself on my thread. There are vaccine and mask discussions available online if arguing is your thing.

It is a VERY common question among 6.5 CM loaders that rarely gets a direct answer. Most answers I’ve seen have come from people like you who like to chime in where they have nothing useful to contribute.

 

[JFrank]

So one could extrapolate that the lapua brass was thicker and had less case volume...

A buddy of mine shares this experience and prefers the Lapua with small pockets for running higher nodes in his F class rifle.

 

[Joe Texas]

A buddy of mine shares this experience and prefers the Lapua with small pockets for running higher nodes in his F class rifle.

And the hits just keep on rollin’. I remember you Jim. I don’t have the energy for you AND Poper. I know this particular comment from you is innocuous. It won’t be long though until (like Poper) you are explaining to me why the results I’m discussing are silly. I know, I know. If e’rbody just listened to you and Poper then load development could be done with one bullet, a thimble full of powder, and a single Russian primer. Until I get to ya’ll’s level, imma just have to load stuff and shoot it so guys like you and Poper can tell me how I should have done it. High Road indeed.

 

[JFrank]

Sir
I don't have a problem with you or your thread, in fact my friend shared a similar experience with the case volume as i mentioned.

 

[JFrank]

Yes' I remember you too, your the guy that starts a load development thread and gets hurt feelings if someone doesn't agree or suggests a difference and then tells everyone off and leaves. On THR we challenge the argument we don't attack the person. I won't apologize for being a 1000 yard bench rest competitor and I won't apologize for being a pretty good tuner and I shouldn't have to apologize for trying to help a fella.
I joined to learn and contribute I'm not sure about your intentions.

Nothing more to learn from this thread.

 

[Walkalong]

Y'all ease up.

True, different primers, but it shouldn't make much difference in how long the cases last. Lapua tends to last longer simply because it's better more duable brass. Only way to tell for sure is do it.

 

[Joe Texas]

Yes' I remember you too, your the guy that starts a load development thread and gets hurt feelings if someone doesn't agree or suggests a difference and then tells everyone off and leaves. On THR we challenge the argument we don't attack the person. I won't apologize for being a 1000 yard bench rest competitor and I won't apologize for being a pretty good tuner and I shouldn't have to apologize for trying to help a fella.
I joined to learn and contribute I'm not sure about your intentions.

Nothing more to learn from this thread.

Jim, my intentions are clearly stated in the thread. I only take the time to post on here in case someone else working with the same components can benefit from what I learn from my tests. I post what I wish I had found while researching a particular topic.

My feelings aren’t hurt. I get frustrated because invariably someone has to try and explain why what I said was invalid.

This thread is no exception.

I’ve been using Hornady brass since I first rebarreled my .308 to 6.5. I’ve been sitting on a box of Lapua srp brass but didn’t want to rework my loads. I searched high and low for information on the general difference in powder charge between the two to hopefully reduce the size of the test required. I found very little info.

When I finally broke down and tried it, I found that in the Lapua srp brass, a 3/4 of a grain reduction from the powder charge used in the Hornady brass got me to around my original velocity/accuracy node.

So, silly me thinks, “I bet somebody else is wondering the same thing. Let me start a quick thread and help a brotha’ out.”

Then what happens? What always happens. Somebody jumps on to explain why everything I reported about what I had just shot half an hour ago couldn’t possibly be useful. It gets old.

I know that there is no substitute for working things up in a particular firearm. I don’t post to make universal definitive statements about specific combinations of components. I just share what happens when I try stuff to add to the general anecdotal information available.

Maybe, just maybe, someone else is in the same situation and what I report could save ‘em a few bullets, primers, and grains of powder discovering what I just spent my time and cash to learn.

I just wish I could do that just once without someone doing what was done here and what you did on my original load development thread.

 

[JFrank]

I see that I left quite an impression, I trust you were not severely wounded during this previous encounter you speak of.

Your informative thread that you have so carefully put together has been discussed at length several years ago as well as the load development thread you so proudly posted that might have helped a Bro out back in 2007 when the Creed was developed.
as I politely mentioned a friend shared your case volume findings and preferred one over the other for his particular disciple' that should be taken as reinforcement. Instead you go on a rant and get personal so I once tried to help a fella out with a few tips and perhaps some tough love but no more freebie's from me, interesting that these forums are loaded with great people from all disciplines some world record holders and highly regarded gunsmiths also wildcatters no longer post on forums simply due to the negative feedback when they try to help a Brother out so now we have a re loader Library of wisdom pinned to the top of the page.
Check it out some day and maybe just maybe you'll learn something.

 

[Poper]

Ok. Imma try one last time.

• Both brass is made for the 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge.

• The Hornady brass has a LARGE primer pocket.

• The Lapua brass has a SMALL primer pocket.

• The comparison is with the same bullet and powder. The primer CANNOT be the same because the two I’m comparing have different size primer pockets.

• There would ALWAYS be two variables in the comparison. One variable however, is always constant - the primer type in each.

• Both types of brass were trimmed to the same length and prepped the same way. The Lapua brass was new so I didn’t anneal it. It was neck sized and chamfered the same way the Hornady brass was.

• If the new/fire-formed difference is significant, then it may make a difference. I personally haven’t had to significantly re-work up a load because of using fire-formed brass. If anything, it just tightens a bit compared to the first firing of new brass

• The variable being deliberately changed for the comparison is only the powder charge.

• I found it interesting that a reduction of .7 grain was constant across 4 different loads. Maybe that’s a coincidence. Maybe it is significant.

• What is significant for sure is the about 1.05 grain H2O capacity difference between the two. (Another constant with consistent brass prep)

Anyway, in my effort to answer the question that is often asked about how much the powder charge must be reduced from Hornady to Lapua srp 6.5 Creedmoor brass to achieve the same velocity, my answer is “about 3/4 of a grain but go down twice that and work up to be safe.”

I’m not claiming to know everything. I’m only sharing my experience as one real-world data point. I post what I had hoped to find online but didn’t in an effort to help someone else, not to one-up somebody.

Load data can span 4 grains from start charge to max. To start all the way from scratch is expensive and maybe unnecessary. It would be nice if you have an established load in Hornady brass and could only go down 1-1.5 grains or so and work back up, right? That’s all I was saying.

If the info I post is unsafe, then by all means, argue. If not, then all you are doing is entertaining yourself on my thread. There are vaccine and mask discussions available online if arguing is your thing.

It is a VERY common question among 6.5 CM loaders that rarely gets a direct answer. Most answers I’ve seen have come from people like you who like to chime in where they have nothing useful to contribute.

In order to make the comparisons valid, you MUST use like for like. You CANNOT use different brands of brass and expect the difference in primer size to be the ONLY variable. In doing so, your concluclusions are INVALID. (In other words: meaningless.)

Fortunately for you, if you truly wish to make this experiment mean something YOU CAN BUY LAPUA BRASS WITH BOTH THE LARGE AND SMALL RIFLE PRIMERS. (https://www.lapua.com/cases/6-5-creedmoor/)

6.5 Creedmoor brass with small rifle primer
Made with Lapua’s typical dedication to precision, our new 6.5 Creedmoor case has been refined just a bit, to make it an even better performer. We’ve opted for the small rifle primer, which normally produces an optimized ignition and better accuracy than large primers in mid-sized cartridges like the Creedmoor.

We’ve also incorporated our smaller diameter flash hole (1.5mm, rather than the industry standard 2.0mm), which has proven to provide enhanced accuracy, and is used in a number of our other accuracy oriented cases. In this respect, the new 6.5 Creedmoor joins the ranks of our other dedicated accuracy cartridges such as the .220 Russian (6mm PPC), the 6mm BR Norma, the 6.5×47 Lapua and the .308 Win. Palma cases.

And naturally, the 6.5 Creedmoor is made with our well known Passion for Precision. Lapua ammunition is manufactured with strictest control over the metallurgy, the forming and drawing processes and precise annealing, all performed under the watchful eyes of our production experts. For you, the handloader, that means the durability for which our cases are famous, combined with consistency and long life. Already proven in shooting competitions, we predict that the 6.5 Creedmoor will be a force to be reckoned with for many years to come.

and:

6.5 Creedmoor brass with large rifle primer
The newer edition of the case, Lapua 6.5 Creedmoor Large Rifle Primer cartridge cases provide competitive shooters, hunters and Mil/LE operators an option utilizing a large rifle primer for enhanced performance in inclement weather conditions. The Large Rifle cases improve ignition consistency where extreme temperature swings are prevalent.

The 6.5 Creedmoor LRP offering provides reliable ignition with a large primer in the most extreme weather conditions for hunting, competitive shooting, or military / law enforcement support. Particularly in the U.S., elite forces and civilians utilize various semi-auto platforms to engage targets at extreme long ranges. The large rifle primed 6.5 Creedmoor cartridges cases are purpose-built to function and perform flawlessly in today’s ever-popular semi-auto gas guns, AR’s, and other similar platforms.

You can play with Hornady large primer brass and Lapua large primer brass and see which performs better OR you can use Lapua large primer brass and Lapua small primer brass and see which performs better. But you cannot have 2 different brass manufacturers and two different primer sizes and say that you have a correlation in performance because the primer sizes are different - because the brass is ALSO different and THE BRASS may be the the determining factor and NOT the primer size.

It does not matter if you agree or not. Your stipulation that Hornady brass is identical to Lapua brass except for the primer size is WRONG.

That should explain the point.
I hope this helps.

 

[Poper]

So, silly me thinks, “I bet somebody else is wondering the same thing. Let me start a quick thread and help a brotha’ out.”

Then what happens? What always happens. Somebody jumps on to explain why everything I reported about what I had just shot half an hour ago couldn’t possibly be useful. It gets old.

It may be useful to you in your partucular instance, but is likely useless to anyone else. JMHO, of course and worth everything you paid for it.

 

[Walkalong]

Y'all ease up.

Well, that didn’t work.