Heavy .44 load with Standard primers

Status
Not open for further replies.

mec

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
4,588
Somebody gave me 5,000 Remington 2 1/2 primers that are several decades old. I wanted to learn several things about them so loaded up a batch of Dry Creek 313 grain Gaschecks over a load that calls for magnum instead of standard primers. The21.5 grain ww 296 charge affords a bit of compression and is .5 gr heavier than my cci magnum primer load. the velocity records about 30 feet per second faster than the mag primed load and consistency over ten rounds is every bit as good. Target was at 50 yards shot from a seated /knee rested position double action setting the gun down after each shot to record velocities
dc31321onehalf296sml.jpg
 
Many have wondered if Magnum primers are really necessary in pistol cartridges. Seeing as how Winchester does not make a large pistol magnum primer, I guess we know. Now, does a magnum primer make a difference in 357 Magnum when using W-296 or H-110? Long, thin powder column. This may make a difference.
 
Don't know about other 296'/H110 loads but these heavy bullets tend to cook off full density loads very efficiently. I do know that the rumors about full density 2400 loads being accurate and consistent with at least some standard primers are true.

I was a bit concerned about Remington primers as a batch I had a few years ago, gave off an anemic pop and a good many misfires. These are as loud in a primed case as CCI standards and seem to be about as efficient in the ignition department.

There a whole world of mix and match with primer variations that I haven't done but I have found that WW Small magnum pistol primers are not nearly as efficient as CCI 550s .
 
Never did full scale comparisons between mag primers and std ... but really do feel that there is little point in bothering with them these days.

Certainly, In a well stuffed 44 case and with a heavy bullet .. I'd suggest that the std primer will ignite and cook off the powder perfectly well enough .. the crimp if any and the bullet inertia (resistance to acceleration we might say) will all combine to work just fine. Much same for 357 even if a taller column of powder.

After all too ... consistency between rounds is a main concern IMO.

I have quite a lot of pretty old 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 primers knocking around ...... using them up for plinker rounds of all sorts ..... no probs whatsoever.

Nice pic BTW!
 
For years we used CCI 350 primers but for the last several years have went to WLP's with no complaints. We use them for all large pistol loads reguardless of the powder being used. BTW Great looking Redhawk.

www.creeker.net
 
by the way, great looking bullet. this RH particularly likes them.
 
The purpose of the magnum primers is to ignite a larger volume of powder instead of waiting for the powder at the bottom to burn and set off the powder around it. In a short barreled pistol, depending upon bullet weight and crimp, a magnum primer should provide a more complete burn.
 
We push Keith bullets here but that bullet is a great one. I've had reports of accuracy that makes me smile. It's also a great bullet for the 444 Marlin.
 
This particular Redhawk really prefers jacketed or gaschecked bullets to the plainbase- although it hasn't shown any leading to speak of with any of your bullets loaded heavy.
 
Now, does a magnum primer make a difference in 357 Magnum when using W-296 or H-110? Long, thin powder column. This may make a difference.
I accidentally loaded some .357 with 158gr FMJ (2/3 turn of crimp) over 16gr of W296 with standard Winchester small pistol primers. The result was a locked up cylinder, a stuck bullet and golden chunks of partially burned powder in my barrel. Several subsequent rounds fired as experiments ignited, but left chunks of powder residue in the barrel and chamber, and had substandard velocity.
The same load ignites readily using Winchester magnum small pistol primers. The load was shot in a GP100.
I concur with the opinions on large pistol primers. Winchester's work fine for everything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top