• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

LR Magnum Primers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maj Dad

Maj Dad

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
1,675
Location
Carolina Low Country
Gents, due to the supply flukiations in everything associated with reloading, I am forced to use CCI 250 LR magnum primers in some 7.62 x 51/.308 loads with 150 s.p. and 147 fmj bt's. The cases are mixed GI/NATO cases, trimmed to min oal, and my plan is to use listed starting loads from Accurate's 1994 manual #1 for 2520 bought ~1998. I have an unopened 8# jug and I plan on moving it into some ammo.

Anyone see evidence of faulty logic? I know about decreased case volume in GI brass and hotter/more intense magnum primers, and I took that into consideration. Constructive comments are earnestly solicited... :scrutiny:
 
Many reloaders will use CI #34 NATO primers for their military ammo meant for semi-autos and no one talks about decreasing the charge weights with those primers even though they are magnum class primers. (as per CCI) Magnum primers will not cause a nuclear explosion, they merely burn slightly longer and slightly hotter. Since you are using the starting charge weight I see no reason you will have and sign of a problem.

Why are you using a 20 year old manual when Accurate has an online data site with up to date load data?
http://www.accuratepowder.com/load-data/
Why not use both to compare data?
 
Nope, don't see any faulty thinking as stated above by AA. I regularly use LR Mag primers in my .308 loads. Surprising thing is, most my loads are near max loads and I've had 0 issues using the mag primers. I even have one load that is slightly over max listed in book, and still 0 signs of over pressure with mag primers.
 
Thanks, gentlemen - I always like to hear from other experienced reloaders hopefully to validate what I have come up with.

ArchAngel, I do use several different manuals, especially with AA since they source their powder all over the globe. The max loads from the old one to the newest have all dropped noticeably. I actually called and spoke with their chief powder chemist/engineer/guru (Czech gentleman, I believe) in the late 90's about the differences in the "improved" powders, specifically #2 Imp. He stated that the only difference is the bulk density of the improved version, meaning it would fill the case better. Burn rate and other parameters were not changed. So I take all of the data, eg-zamicate it, and go from there... :scrutiny:
Thanks again, and best regards,
George J.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top