david bachelder
Member
I loaded about 300 45ACP rounds the other day with my LNL. I have a bunch of Tula (TulAmmo KVB-45) large pistol primers. I bought them during harder times a while back and have used a great deal of them. I haven't had any real problems with them as far as no fires or any other mechanical issue with them, and this is not a rant against Tula primers.
As I was reloading I was also stocking primer tubes. Two of them were filled with the Tula primers and one of them was filled with CCI's (#300 Large Pistol Primers). Using the Tula primers I noticed that they seemed a bit harder to seat than what I remembered. It was like they were a bit larger or something. As the loading progressed I came to the tube loaded with the CCI Primers. I immediately noticed that the CCI's were easier to seat.
I wondered why? This morning I took a CCI LP primer and measured the OD at .210", then I took a Tula and measured it at .210" as well. That blew the theory that the Tula's were a bit bigger around. Then I thought that there was a possibility that the CCI's had a tapered leading edge, allowing them to seat with less effort. I compared the two side by side with a 10X illuminated Loupe. I could not see any taper on the CCI's, and further I didn't notice any difference between the two at all.
After a few minutes I noticed that the wall thickness on the primer cup seemed to be a bit thicker on the Tula primers. I measured the two and from what I see the Tula cup metal is about .001 thicker that the CCI cup.
Tula measured .016"
CCI measured .015"
I'm measuring with a Harbor Freight Micrometer, so I don't have 100% confidence with my measurements even though I measured three times on each cup.
I'm supposing the Tula's thicker cup is what makes them require a bit more effort than the CCI's.
Has anyone else ever noticed this?
As I was reloading I was also stocking primer tubes. Two of them were filled with the Tula primers and one of them was filled with CCI's (#300 Large Pistol Primers). Using the Tula primers I noticed that they seemed a bit harder to seat than what I remembered. It was like they were a bit larger or something. As the loading progressed I came to the tube loaded with the CCI Primers. I immediately noticed that the CCI's were easier to seat.
I wondered why? This morning I took a CCI LP primer and measured the OD at .210", then I took a Tula and measured it at .210" as well. That blew the theory that the Tula's were a bit bigger around. Then I thought that there was a possibility that the CCI's had a tapered leading edge, allowing them to seat with less effort. I compared the two side by side with a 10X illuminated Loupe. I could not see any taper on the CCI's, and further I didn't notice any difference between the two at all.
After a few minutes I noticed that the wall thickness on the primer cup seemed to be a bit thicker on the Tula primers. I measured the two and from what I see the Tula cup metal is about .001 thicker that the CCI cup.
Tula measured .016"
CCI measured .015"
I'm measuring with a Harbor Freight Micrometer, so I don't have 100% confidence with my measurements even though I measured three times on each cup.
I'm supposing the Tula's thicker cup is what makes them require a bit more effort than the CCI's.
Has anyone else ever noticed this?