Remington Sm. Pistol Primers 1 1/2 & 5 1/2 Inquiry

F

foxymike

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Location
Eugene, Oregon
Ladies and Gents,

A couple of eons ago, during the Great Primer Shortage of 2009 or thereabouts, I was unable to buy my usual primer of choice, Winchester Small Pistol, but I was able to get Remington Small Pistol #1 1/2. They seemed to work fine.

Then, a while ago, and after the Shortage (Winchester having become available), while in Bi-Mart to buy some primers, the store had on sale some Remington Small Pistol primers at a much lower price than the Winchesters. Being the tightwad that I am, I said, "What the heck?", and bought them.

When I got home, I found they were Remington #5 1/2s instead of #1 1/2s. I looked all over the box to make sure that I didn't accidentally buy Magnum primers, and nowhere on the box did it say "Magnum," so I used them. As a matter of fact, I used them all, and they all went "bang," just like the #1 1/2s.

So, my simple inquiry is: What is the difference between #1 1/2s and #5 1/2s? (I couldn't discern any.) And, while we're at it, What is it with Remington and this "1/2" business anyhow?

Since I've used all the primers, this is a moot point. I'm just curious, that's all. (And if no one sees fit to respond, I guess it will be a "mute point" as well!)

Thanks in advance!

Mike
HHC, 17th Combat Aviation Group
Nha Trang Vietnam
1969-1970
 
Register to hide this ad
Rule3 said:
I also still want to know what's with the 1/2 thing ???:)
Click to expand...

Goes back a long, long way. My recollection is the original designation of Remington primers was 1, 2, 9, etc, when they were the old mercuric (fulminate of mercury) black powder compound. This changed sometime in the 1920s-1930s when the change was made to the non-mercuric, non-corrosive "Kleanbore" priming compound which is lead styphnate based. The 1/2 was added to distinguish between the two types.

This does not apply to the 5 1/2, as there never was a mercuric size 5 (SP Magnum) primer, but it provides consistancy in the numbering system. Apparently Remington expects reloaders to consult reference materials, like loading manuals, to understand the application of their various primers. Similarly, they added an M, making the 9 1/2M Large Rifle Magnum primer. You are supposed to know, from references, that it is the Large Rifle Magnum primer.

Every loading manual I can think of has a reference section, and lists of various manufacturers primers are identified as to type.
 
It may not say the 5 1/2 primers are their small pistol magnum primers but that's exactly what they are. They work great with HS-6, HS-7 and W296/H110...
 
Alk8944 said:
Goes back a long, long way. My recollection is the original designation of Remington primers was 1, 2, 9, etc, when they were the old mercuric (fulminate of mercury) black powder compound. This changed sometime in the 1920s-1930s when the change was made to the non-mercuric, non-corrosive "Kleanbore" priming compound which is lead styphnate based. The 1/2 was added to distinguish between the two types.

This does not apply to the 5 1/2, as there never was a mercuric size 5 (SP Magnum) primer, but it provides consistancy in the numbering system. Apparently Remington expects reloaders to consult reference materials, like loading manuals, to understand the application of their various primers. Similarly, they added an M, making the 9 1/2M Large Rifle Magnum primer. You are supposed to know, from references, that it is the Large Rifle Magnum primer.

Every loading manual I can think of has a reference section, and lists of various manufacturers primers are identified as to type.
Click to expand...

It was only a question regarding the use of 1/2, just seemed odd. Not what the actual primer was used for. Hence the :).

Manuals, reference?? Are those required?;)
 
I don't particularly care for Rem primers, and their naming scheme is only part of it.

Winchester has the most sensible naming scheme in my opinion. Pistol or rifle, in large or small, and you can get magnum if you want. :D
 
Kinda my thoughts. I never used a Rem primer. No particular reason. Winchester works fine, and during the shortage I went to Wolf and have had no problems, little harder to seat but work well and cheap!

I think 5.5 would look more professional and confuse people more.:D
 
Rule3 said:
I think 5.5 would look more professional and confuse people more.:D
Click to expand...

Excellent! :D

I happen to be a fan of Remington primers, and I use them by choice in certain calibers (.22 Jet, .32 S&W Long, .222 Remington, and .22 Hornet, for example.) In other calibers, I like them almost as well as Federals.

I particularly like Remington's compact little boxes they use to ship their primers. Just like the good old days. I am a bit more fond of Federal primers for most pistol cartridges that I load, but their gigantic boxes are such a pain to store I now find myself storing Remingtons when I can and using up the Federals as I get them. My exception to that policy is Federal 150s, which I have such good luck with I refuse to buy any other standard large pistol primer unless it is an "emergency." :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top