CCI 400 vs CCI41 Primers

[berettaprofessor]

I ran a comparison today; 10 each of 223 loaded with either CCI400 or CCI41. As I've said in other posts, I recently, in desperation, gave up on finding SR primers and bit on MidwayUSA's batch of CCI 41's, which I've never used before.

All these were shot out of a Stag AR with a 24" stainless bull barrel, 1:8 twist. The twenty test rounds (columns 1 and 2) were loads of 24.0 grains of CFE223 (dropped from an RCBS Lite Chargemaster) behind a 62 grain Hornady Match bullet at OAL 2.200 (that rifle doesn't really like the 62 Hornady match but I have a bunch I want to use up). Today's temps were 79F, 50% humidity, light gusts. I started with three shots from an identical load done previously to check the scope and the chrony (column 3). The 4th column is my previous test of those rounds (9 shots, but through a Savage Axis and in cooler weather).



As you can see, the two primers result in the same velocity, with more standard deviation and extreme spread of the CCI41 rounds. If the CCI41 is more of a magnum primer, I can't tell it from the chrony. The CCI 400 group sizes (3 groups of 3 rounds each) were also half the size of the CCI 41 groups, but that could have all been the lower SD of the CCI400. Neither gave me a stellar group (except for one CCI 400 group of 0.390 at 60 yards) but, as I said, this rifle doesn't like the 62 Hornady match. It's a laser with 52 grain ELD's and 28 grains of CFE223.

The CCI41 showed no signs of increased pressure (see photo below). CCI 41's are on the left and more bronzy. I'm not sure why they had greater deviation today than the CCI400, but my previous CCI 400 test (column 4) of an earlier loading episode has just as much or more deviation.



Two other observations; 1) CFE223 is a very dirty powder. Only twenty-three rounds today and the gun was pretty dirty. 2) I would have told you that I've never had a slam fire using CCI400's in an AR (and I haven't). But for those first rounds to check the scope, I loaded 5 rounds and shot three. The round on the right was the next one chambered and although it didn't fire, it does show the primer was dimpled

 

[kmw1954]

Nice report.
My personal experience with both primers, with out the Chrono, shot in a Savage Axis 223.. Tries the CCI #41 because at the time it was all I could find. as I used them in the first 100rounds I started facing an almost 50% fail to fire rate with these primers. Made a switch to #400 primers and the problem vanished. I traded those primers off.

Later found another sleeve of 100 #41 I forgot I had and loaded those and shot them on a Savage Model 10 223 and every one fired. Sadly after posting on the Savage Shooters forum I discovered that the Axis is prone to light strikes and FTF and the heavy #41 only exacerbated it.

But again this is only one persons personal experience.

 

[AJC1]

For internal ballistics the mag 450 would be closer to the 41.

 

[edwardware]

If the CCI41 is more of a magnum primer, I can't tell it from the chrony.

So, my theory on magnum primers. . .

The difference from non- to magnum primers will be largest when the non- primer fails to completely saturate the charge with hot gas, resulting in delayed ignition of some of the charge. Switching to a magnum primer in this case will result in higher or complete saturation, and less or no delayed ignition.

If a non- primer completely saturates the charge, a magnum primer will make only a small difference.

This is consistent with my experiments across powders and temperatures in .357Mag and .375 H&H.

 

[ImjinScout85]

Thanks for the detailed testing and the write up. I too needed some SR primers and did the same thing as you did, I purchased the CCI 41's from Midway when they were available. I just load plinking rounds for multiple AR's with 55 FMJBT and H335 and it's great to have that info you provided. I have only ever used the CCI 400's in my rifle loads.

 

[berettaprofessor]

Well at least everyone knows they probably don’t have to back off the load they’re using…at least those in midrange CFE223

 

[Charlie98]

I load 5.56mm with H335, which some load data suggests should be used with a Magnum primer. I ran a short, informal test some years ago... testing for velocity, not accuracy. The standard CCI 400 primers actually gave slightly higher velocity with less variation than the suggested CCI #41 primers. There are a number of factors that could have changed that, however... it was not a compressed load, it was not 20F out, I was shooting a 55grn bullet... Change any one of those parameters and it's possible my results would have been different, and particularly the compressed load part. Magnum primers are used with ball powders in military ammunition to ensure complete and reliable ignition in temperature extremes... not necessarily accuracy, and that with loading data very near the limits. I highlighted 'reliable' because it is much different than 'consistent,' if you see what I mean. Consistent ignition would give you lower variations, typically.

 

[Warpiece]

Unless I am misunderstanding, the primers were compared using the same established loads. Was anyone doing a work up that could have shown if the difference had pushed the load out of a node?

 

[berettaprofessor]

Great question, Warpiece....no, I didn't do a ladder with the 41's to make sure the node still fit. That would be an interesting experiment. I should also try the 41's with my 52 grain ELD's in the Stag.

 

[Charlie98]

Was anyone doing a work up that could have shown if the difference had pushed the load out of a node?

In my case, that's why I didn't bother with accuracy testing... I was looking for velocity variations only, as a prelude to load workup. As I mentioned, it was an open-ended test... changing any one of those parameters very well would have changed my results. I was more interested to see what happened using a standard primer with H335... I was actually expecting to see crazy variations there, because I wasn't using a Magnum primer (for complete ignition.)

 

[EricBu]

Matches my testing to a T. I will say that my CVA Scout in 300BLK, and my CZ527 could not reliably punch the cup on the 41's, exactly the same as CCI Small Rifle Magnum primers. So I've concluded that the only real difference in the 41 is a slightly harder cup.

 

[Warpiece]

I'm interested because I'm in a similar situation. I may be able to contribute, I have some loads to finish a work up on with CFE223. I had been working through some S&B srp, may even include them with the 400 and 41's. I'm focusing on the upper range, so I'm inclined to progress in tenth increments.

 

[Blue68f100]

I've done the same test with CCI #41 & Rem 7 1/2's. Sometimes the swap improve the grouping some time they don't. After a load workup I always try different powders as the last step. Just encase I need to substitute. I've had some loads were it made no difference, too.

This is why it's suggested every time you change a component you need to rework you load.

 

[GONRA]

GONRA uses CCI Military Primers 'cause they're SLAMFIRE RESISTANT.
Both CCI #41 and Remington 7 1/2 are OK for my picky semiautos
in my reference collection....

 

[2ndtimer]

I appreciate your findings and since I also have a Stag Model 6 that I use for load testing, found your conclusions interesting. I have never tried the CCI-41 primers, but have experimented with pretty much all of the others. I also have never experienced a slam fire in an AR, at least in the 4 I have or the 3 my son has had and we fired a lot of ammo primed with CCI-400 primers.
As for your comment regarding how dirty CFE-223 is, I think that may be the result of too light a load that you were using. The new Nosler No. 9 manual lists a starting load of CFE-223 at 25.0 gr with their 60/62 gr bullets, with a listed max of 27.0 gr. You might find more complete (cleaner) burning at increased charge weight. It also might reduce the variation between shots as well as improve the performance of the magnum primers, too. I was not impressed with CFE-223 when I tried it in my .223’s. I had much better results with TAC, Benchmark, IMR-8208XBR and more recently, Shooters World Precision Rifle with 62 and 69 gr bullets. Before you decide that your Stag doesn’t like the Hornady 62 gr BTHP, I suggest trying it with those powders. That bullet with 24.5 gr of Ramshot TAC has become our “go to” load in our AR’s, and has shot a number of .75 inch 10 shot groups at100 yards from my Stag.
I use mostly RP 7 1/2 primers since I got a case of them right before this latest panic, but also use CCI-400 and 450, Federal AR Match and some Wolf 223 and Sellier & Bellot small rifle. Actually, the S&B have provided some of the most consistent loads, a pity they are no longer available.

 

[kmw1954]

Actually, the S&B have provided some of the most consistent loads, a pity they are no longer available.

Have to agree 100% on both parts of that statement.

 

[berettaprofessor]

As for your comment regarding how dirty CFE-223 is, I think that may be the result of too light a load that you were using.

Sadly, you're probably right. I thought I had worked up that load with a ladder previously but I can't find my notes on it....it WAS near the bottom; Hodgdon lists 23.8 as the low load for 62 grain. Maybe I'd better work that one up again.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I tested the CCI #400, #450 and #41 primers with H335 but I'm sorry to say I can't find my notes on the test. I think the #450 primers gave the highest velocities. I will try to find the notes and post the results. The test was done in an AR-15 with an 18" barrel and a 55gr bullet.

 

[AJC1]

I tested the CCI #400, #450 and #41 primers with H335 but I'm sorry to say I can't find my notes on the test. I think the #450 primers gave the highest velocities. I will try to find the notes and post the results. The test was done in an AR-15 with an 18" barrel and a 55gr bullet.

The 41 and 450 are supposed to have the same compound and volume. The 41 having a special anvil design to prevent semi auto slamfires.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I know but it is what it is lol. You are correct of course.