Best substitute for CCI #34 primers?

[tjd308]

So we all know that the #34 & 41 primers from CCI are supposedly less sensitive and ideal for service rifles and weapons with floating firing pins to prevent slam fires. I'm having a tough time sorting through all of the opinions on if this is just marketing hype from CCI or if it really is worth worrying about. I'm inclined to be with the crowd that says 99% of slamfires are from improperly seating primers and not their sensitivity, but it seems to make sense to spend the little extra for insurance just in case. The issue is you can't find the damn things. I found some on Brownells.com but after $45 in HAZMAT & shipping charges, the $41 box of 1,000 primers came to $89 w/ tax (don't quote me on those numbers exactly, but they're close)!!!

I hear the Winchester WLR primers are a decent substitute but some say they recently made them more sensitive, so maybe not as good of a substitute anymore. Any ideas here? Maybe I could contact Sportsman's Warehouse or Academy near me and see if they would get some shipped to the store with their other primer shipment so I don't have to pay the silly fees?

Any advice here is welcome. I'm primarily concerned about having a slamfire in the M1 Garand I've started loading for. I'm just hung up on this primer thing before I load up my first reloads (have 150 Greek HXP brass already prepped).

 

[satexas]

I've reloaded .223/5/56 for 20 years using CCI400s and never had a slam fire.

 

[macgrumpy]

Wolf primers have a pretty good reputation and by most accounts they seem to be an equivalent of the CCI service rifle primers. Personally I don't buy in to the claim that CCI 34s and 41s must be used with service rifle ammunition, I've used Federal Premium primers in my M1As for over a decade and I've never had an issue of any kind (more than I can say for Winchester primers). I have no problem with using CCI primers I just don't see that they are required.

 

[rskent]

I've used Federal Premium primers in my M1As for over a decade and I've never had an issue of any kind

Interesting, I’ve always heard that the Federals were the softest primers there is.

 

[tjd308]

Interesting, I’ve always heard that the Federals were the softest primers there is.

Thanks to both of you for your replies, but this is where I get confused. One person says no issue and then the other contradicts them. Is there not some source that has done testing in this realm? It seems like someone could setup a test where a light strike situation is created in some sort of testing device and gradually increased in very small increments over a large sample size of primers from a variety of manufacturers and then rank order the results as to which were ignited with the lightest to heaviest strikes. Has anyone seen any sort of test like this?

 

[macgrumpy]

I'm an old guy (59 years old) but honestly it's the old guys that keep spreading this false claim that Federal primers are too "soft" to be used in service rifles and I could argue how wrong they are for ever but the bottom line is that the military has used Federal 210M primers for their MK316 Mod 0 sniper cartridges since the development of that cartridge. If those primers were too soft for milSpec then why do they use thousands of them every year for their sniper ammo.

Personally I think that it started when CCI started loosing it's market to Federal, they needed a marketing ploy that would help guarantee their market share.

The old argument that the Federal primers were too soft is one of those statements that has morphed in to something that it never was. Most people have been led to believe that the primer cup is soft compared to a milSpec primer cup, but there has never been any proof of that. While milSpec drawings might specify the primer cup material (I don't know, I've never been able to find a copy of the milSpec drawings for the primers) the milSpec tests for primer sensitivity does not. The actual sensitivity test only requires that the primers be tested by dropping a weighted device on the primers from a certain height, the standard being that a certain percentage of all primers tested must go off when struck with a specific weight using a specific height. According to some people Federal primers were more "sensitive" meaning that they went off with either lighter weights or lower heights - some people called that a "softer" primer meaning that the primer went off with a softer impact but that word was misconstrued to mean that the primer cup material was "softer". The reality is that the primer mix was more sensitive. Primer cups are made from the same brass as the cartridge case (with some variations in coatings and extrusion processes) so the cup material is pretty much the same regardless of primer manufacturer which means that primer cup hardness is pretty much the same regardless of manufacturer. The primer mix, on the other hand, is proprietary to each company and they don't tell anybody what their compound is. So the reality is that the primer cups are the same but the priming mix is different and the priming mix (and the construction and placement of the anvil relative to the cup) is what makes the primer more or less sensitive.

To end this long winded post, I prefer to call a primer more or less sensitive rather than softer or harder, I think it's a more accurate description of how a primer ignites, but regardless, Federal primers are being used by the military so I don't have any real confidence in the claim that their primers are too soft to be used with service rifles.

 

[Sunray]

The #34 & 41 primers from CCI are magnum primers and nothing more. Calling 'em 'Milspec' was an absolutely brilliant marketing plan, but they are not required for any battle rifle. So any correct size primer will work just fine. Just like they did before #34 & 41 primers from CCI existed.
Using a magnum primer does nothing to prevent slam fires. Slam fires are not caused by the rifle or the primer. They're caused by improperly loaded ammo, usually not seating the primer correctly.
"...when CCI started loosing it's market to Federal..." Both currently owned by the same holding company.

 

[macgrumpy]

The #34 & 41 primers from CCI are magnum primers and nothing more. Calling 'em 'Milspec' was an absolutely brilliant marketing plan, but they are not required for any battle rifle. So any correct size primer will work just fine. Just like they did before #34 & 41 primers from CCI existed.
Using a magnum primer does nothing to prevent slam fires. Slam fires are not caused by the rifle or the primer. They're caused by improperly loaded ammo, usually not seating the primer correctly.
"...when CCI started loosing it's market to Federal..." Both currently owned by the same holding company.

I agree with most of what you say except for two points;
1. You can also get slamfires from a worn action, especially semi-auto weapons
2. When CCI created the marketing for their primers, it wasn't owned by the same holding company as Federal. Regardless, while a company may be owned by the same holding company it still has to succeed financially on it's own merit so CCI and Federal will still compete against each other.

 

[tjd308]

Thanks gents!

What about CCI BR-2 primers or Remington 9 1/2 primers for the Garand? Based on your point macgrumpy, it has to do with the process and the end result of proper seating depth and not the primers themselves. Are there any differences in these two (BR-2 vs. 9 1/2) that would make you choose one over the other? I have a fair amount of both.

 

[DeadEye9]

Wolf primers have a pretty good reputation and by most accounts they seem to be an equivalent of the CCI service rifle primers. Personally I don't buy in to the claim that CCI 34s and 41s must be used with service rifle ammunition, I've used Federal Premium primers in my M1As for over a decade and I've never had an issue of any kind (more than I can say for Winchester primers). I have no problem with using CCI primers I just don't see that they are required.

I aggree with this. I've loaded a ton of .308/7.62x51 with standard Federal, Wolf and CCI primers and never had a single issue. Typically I use CCI just because I've found in general that all cCI primers are less sensitive than some others plus they've always been good quality for me. I've literally seen people seat them sideways all mashed into a case and not go off though, so they're pretty hearty. I also load/shoot a lot of .300 Savage and various other calibers that require a standard LR primer so it makes it easier for me to just keep a good stock of CCI LR primers around for all purposes. I routinely shoot my .308 Handloads in both an M&P10 and Socom16, so all semi auto use. Haven't had a single issue with the regular CCI or Wolf large rifle primers. Federal LRs have also worked good. I can't speak for Winchester as I've only used their small rifle primers.

 

[Blue68f100]

The #34 & 41 primers from CCI are magnum primers and nothing more. Calling 'em 'Milspec' was an absolutely brilliant marketing plan, but they are not required for any battle rifle. So any correct size primer will work just fine. Just like they did before #34 & 41 primers from CCI existed.
Using a magnum primer does nothing to prevent slam fires. Slam fires are not caused by the rifle or the primer. They're caused by improperly loaded ammo, usually not seating the primer correctly.
"...when CCI started loosing it's market to Federal..." Both currently owned by the same holding company.

I disagree with this because there is more to it than that. The anvils are different to make them harder to set off. Yes they have a magnum primer compound, and the heavier cup but that's all.

Slam fires happen when the bolt is slammed home what out a mag most of the time but not always. The mag slows the bolt speed down.

I've had a slam fire in my 458 SOCOM AR once. Believe me it will get your attention. But this round uses LPM primers (CCI 350). Not the mil spec primers. This round does not see the high pressure as most rifle rounds do.

 

[DeadEye9]

If your seeing slam fires just from dropping the bolt in your rifle then you need to look at more than just the primers you are using to remedy the problem. Floating fire pin, inertia fire pin, whatever the style the fact is if everything is in proper working order you should not need a special primer to prevent the weapon from firing off just from sending the bolt forward. (Unless ofcourse were talking about an open bolt gun to begin with.)
The milSpec primers are more of a marketing thing really. Everything I've ever read in manuals regarding CCI primers states Magnum primers may be substituted for MilSpec primers with no load changes needed. Believe me if they weren't identical compounds to begin with their lawyers would never allow them to put that in writing.

 

[tjd308]

I hate to sound like such a rookie with this question, but I thought that magnum primers should be left for just that, magnum cartridges to ignite the additional and often slower burning powders used in them, no? Would it not be dangerous to load a magnum primer into a .308 WIN or 30-06 that requires just a regular large rifle primer? I guess you just have so start over at minimum powder charge levels and work your way up of course, but I'm all ears on what the differences in the actual primers and also application of them are.

Thanks so much. Very helpful stuff here.

 

[hdwhit]

I thought that magnum primers should be left for just that, magnum cartridges to ignite the additional and often slower burning powders used in them, no?

Yes, magnum primers have a little bit more primer compound in them to ignite heavy or hard to ignite charges.

But, in my experience, exclusivity in that use is not necessarily required.

I have been reloading for 38 years come this April. During that time I predominately loaded .30 Carbine, the 5.7mm Johnson (a wildcat based on the .30 Carbine case) and .223 Remington. Since primers were hard to come by in rural areas, I used what I could get; mostly CCI brand. As a result, I have loaded thousands of rounds using CCI-400, CCI-450, CCI BR-4 and more recently Winchester WSR interchangably with no noticable difference in performance and no problems.

I should add that I am not one of those people reloading ammunition so precise so as to shoot five times and have one hole. For those people, differences in primers could make a difference in their ammunition's performance. For my part, I load ammunition for practice, self-defense and to put meat on the table when it wanders by inside of 200 yards and for such "utilitarian" shooting, the primers just haven't made a difference.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I have used CCI-250 or CCI-200 primers in place of CCI#34 when loading M1 Garand ammo.

In place of CCI#41 I have used in this order, CCI-450, CCI-400 and Rem 7 1/2 primers.

 

[tjd308]

My comment/concern regarding using magnum primers in non-magnum rifle cartridges like .308/.223/30-06 is in regard to safety, not accuracy. Still confused when people say that "#34 and #41 are simply magnum rifle primers" and leave it at that.

 

[DeadEye9]

My comment/concern regarding using magnum primers in non-magnum rifle cartridges like .308/.223/30-06 is in regard to safety, not accuracy. Still confused when people say that "#34 and #41 are simply magnum rifle primers" and leave it at that.

All a magnum primer is is a primer that ignites a bit hotter in order to better burn a large powder charge. Using these in standard cases with standard loads can increase pressure a tad because ignition happens slightly faster, but it's generally not a danger. In fact, many .223 load manuals suggest magnum primers be used for compressed loads vs the standard primer. Basically magnum just refers to its ignition capability and is not a "power" rating. Technically any time you change primers at all you should work up new loads, even when just switching brands. However I know many people who use them interchangeably with no issues. Someday I will use the equipment at work to test the pressure difference on some AR cartridges. So far I do not have a chamber set up for this though, only a 9mm Glock chamber/barrel that is rigged up to read pressures. From what I've heard though, it's around 1k psi difference in 5.56 using a standard SR primer vs a SRM for a given load of Varget. As for other powders and calibers, only testing will tell.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

My comment/concern regarding using magnum primers in non-magnum rifle cartridges like .308/.223/30-06 is in regard to safety, not accuracy. Still confused when people say that "#34 and #41 are simply magnum rifle primers" and leave it at that.

Using a magnum primer has nothing to do with the cartridge being called magnum or not. A magnum primer is needed for large charges of powder, hard to ignite ball powders and cartridges use in very cold conditions.

As for the #34 and #41 primers, CCI states they are both magnum class primers. In addition they are more resistant to ignition with light strikes too. Like said above, magnum primers will burn slightly longer and slightly hotter. They will not create a nuclear explosion when used in a 30-06. If you are hunting in weather near zero and using W760/H414 you will want to use a magnum primer, not a standard primer.

 

[3GunEric]

My 2 Cents

Loaded and fired thousands of primers w/o any slam fires so I don't feel it makes much of a difference.

 

[macgrumpy]

Thanks gents!

What about CCI BR-2 primers or Remington 9 1/2 primers for the Garand? Based on your point macgrumpy, it has to do with the process and the end result of proper seating depth and not the primers themselves. Are there any differences in these two (BR-2 vs. 9 1/2) that would make you choose one over the other? I have a fair amount of both.

The BR primers were made for bench rest shooters at a time when the theory was that a low brisance primer worked best. The idea was that a less energetic primer wouldn't produce an erratic shock wave and the powder would burn more evenly which in turn produced a nice even push on the base of the bullet. So the BR-2 primer isn't really suited to a cartridge that would use a large capacity case with lots of powder and a heavy bullet, it would probably work better with a smaller volume case and 168gr or lighter bullets. I haven't ever compared the BR-2s against the 9 1/2 primers so I can't really say how they perform against each other.

I have no favorite primer that I'd use across the board, I build a load and if I have several primers available then I switch them and pick the one that seems to produce the best results. I will say that getting to know the history of any particular primer helps in selecting what might work best. Like most products specific primers were developed to satisfy some market group so they will perform best for that group. I usually prefer to use Federal as my first choice, then CCI, after those two I'll pick whatever I can afford. The only primer I just don't like is Winchester, I had problems with them years ago and simply never went back to them, the problems I had back then may not be an issue nowadays so I can't say that there is anything bad about them. For my precision ammo in my .308 rifles I always like to use Federal Match primers.

 

[macgrumpy]

From my understanding, there are only two times you need to be very careful about picking a primer;

1. When the powder load is at maximum
2. When the powder load is at minimum

At max, the primer could be capable of pushing pressures higher than you prefer
At min, the primer could create high pressure by igniting all of the powder at once

In both cases a magnum primer could be a bad thing, in most other cases I doubt if it matters whether you use a magnum primer as far as safety goes but they might not produce the smallest groups.

 

[DeadEye9]

The BR primers were made for bench rest shooters at a time when the theory was that a low brisance primer worked best. The idea was that a less energetic primer wouldn't produce an erratic shock wave and the powder would burn more evenly which in turn produced a nice even push on the base of the bullet. So the BR-2 primer isn't really suited to a cartridge that would use a large capacity case with lots of powder and a heavy bullet, it would probably work better with a smaller volume case and 168gr or lighter bullets. I haven't ever compared the BR-2s against the 9 1/2 primers so I can't really say how they perform against each other.

I have no favorite primer that I'd use across the board, I build a load and if I have several primers available then I switch them and pick the one that seems to produce the best results. I will say that getting to know the history of any particular primer helps in selecting what might work best. Like most products specific primers were developed to satisfy some market group so they will perform best for that group. I usually prefer to use Federal as my first choice, then CCI, after those two I'll pick whatever I can afford. The only primer I just don't like is Winchester, I had problems with them years ago and simply never went back to them, the problems I had back then may not be an issue nowadays so I can't say that there is anything bad about them. For my precision ammo in my .308 rifles I always like to use Federal Match primers.

Well put, and I have always heard the exact same thing about Benchrest and Match primers. The idea being a smoother ignition for less erratic pressure behavior and therefore better or more concistent accuracy.