For many years I've been perplexed by the labeling & description (actually lack of description) of Winchester (WLP) & Remington's (2½) large pistol primers (LPP).

Since I started reloading as a teenager I've always used CCI primers & rarely ever deviated until the recent crises when forced to. However about ten years ago I ran into a squib problem using AA#9 in a 45 Colt cartridge load ignited with CCI-300 primers. I ultimately found WLPs solved that problem.

AA#9 Squibs in 45 Colt cases

Those WLPs, which I still have some of, are labelled "for standard or magnum pistol loads".

Flash forward to the current primer shortage period & I've had to add some Remington & Winchester LPPs to keep my stash fed (got while the getting was good) as CCI LPPs are not to be found.

The new bricks of WLP & (2½)s I just bought do not have any description/statement on them, one way or the other, as to what type of primers they are, standard or magnum.

Since they only make the one type of LPP what are we to surmise?

Recently in a Handloader (#346) magazine article, in their question & answer section Bullets & Brass, someone wrote that he had the same problem I just outlined above, squibs with AA#9 in 45 Colts, asking Brian Pearce for help.

Brian told the reader that the WLPs he was using didn't have the ignition energy of the Remington 2-1/2 primer that the powder manufacturer (Western/Hodgdon/Accurate) tested the load with because the Rem 2½ "is a magnum primer" & he should use a primer with more energy like the CCI-300 or Fed-150 but a magnum primer like CCI-350 & FED-155 would be better.

WTH!!

This is the opposite of what I previously found, that the WLP was better than the CCI-300 with this combination in igniting the powder consistently!?

.

So I decided to run a little comparison test of my own since the current situation finds me in possession of all the needed major primer manufacturers' LPPs.

There's endless combinations you could come up with for testing, some better or worse than others, but I decided on using 20.0grs of Alliant 2400 powder with Hornady 240gr XTPs in (previously used) Starline 44 Magnum cases fired from my S&W 629-6 Classic with a 5" barrel & recorded with my LabRadar chronograph at an indoor range.

Reason for using 2400 powder: any ball/spherical powders would have required only a magnum primer be used with them & using standard primers with them would be meaningless & possibly unsafe. 20gr of 2400 is a full load. Some manuals list 19grs as max. & others 21gr.

For years now Alliant/Speer has stated that their currently published load data for 2400 should only be used with a regular/standard primer, like CCI-300, & that magnum primers would cause excessive pressure if used with that data. (Please, let's not go down that road & argue this point again.) Thus using 20grs gives a little leeway in the pressure department over a higher charge.

The primers: CCI-300 & FED-150 (both "standard load"), CCI-350 & FED-155 (both "magnum load"), and the "un-defined" WIN-WLP & Remington 2½ primers, both from new stock.

As I was finishing up priming the prepped S-L brass, keeping each brand of primed brass in marked zip bags as I went, I realized that as I swiped my finger tip over each freshly seated primer this batch of brass had generously deep primer pockets & gave me the idea to try loading some CCI-200 LRP (large rifle primers, standard power) primers, just to see if they would seat below flush.

To my surprise they were fine so I included them too figuring they'd be a nice addition to the test, just for ha-ha's.

Keep in mind this combination is NOT suggested as LRPs are taller than LPPs & could be a hazard if not seated below flush. This is just a one-off test with these, & the rounds were chambered one at a time for firing in this test, which gave some unexpected numbers.

.

I've also included some chrono numbers comparing the .430" HDY 240gr XTP to Zero's 240gr JSP with an otherwise identical load combination in the 5" 629. Surprising what a difference a bullet style makes. (FYI: these Zero 240gr bullets come from the manufacturer sized "fat" at .4312" which I resize down to .4302" in a Lee Push-Thru sizer.)

Additionally I included a couple of comparisons of data using an identical load combination in the 5" M629 -vs- the 2¾" M69.

.

Summary: The CCI-300 & FED-150 standard primers tested essentially the same (1319mv -vs- 1322mv) but the FED-155 lacked performance as a magnum primer & couldn't better them with its 1322mv.

In the battle of the "un-defined" the WLP was clearly more "magnum like" (1343mv) than the Rem 2½ which grossly under-performed (1315mv) as a "supposedly" magnum primer.

I thought the CCI-200 LRP would be more "magnum-like" considering what its regular job is but the 1344mv & worst in test ES of 78 was a little disappointing.

The winner was the CCI-350 with an average 1354mv & an ES of 9.

The Rem 2½ also had a good ES of 11 but as mentioned the average MV was lower than expected.

.

That's all I've got. No doubt under different circumstances the numbers could be different but that's what I got on a given day with my setup.

Don't shoot the messenger.

.

Primer comparisons - (click charts for a larger view)
.


.
.

HDY 240gr XTP -vs- Zero 240gr JSP; CCI-300 & CCI-350
.


.
.

2¾" M69 -vs- 5" M629; CCI-300 & CCI-350



.
.

The primers: Federal wins the award for "Most Wasteful Packaging"
.


.
.

- the bagged & labelled participants -
(the "X" on the label is just to let me know it's a partial pack)
.


.
.

WLP: the old & the new
.


.
.

M629 Classic, 5" bbl. w/unfluted cylinder
.


.
.

M69, Combat Magnum, 2¾" bbl.
- Bullitt: the Limited-Edition background -
.


.
.



.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

Years ago tested the Fed 150 against the Rem 2 1/2 because had bought some Rem's. Simiiarly, the Remingtons gave slower velocitys in 45 acp 200 grain target loads. When using them up, very slightly increased the powder charge to compensate.

While Mr. Pearce is my favorite handloading writer, he is not infallible. Recently he made some inaccurate statements on Starlines 45 plus p brass, which he later corrected.

I've seen little velocity difference in any handgun primers, standard or magnum, small pistol or large pistol. If availablity is good, I'll always go with CCIs, only because they've worked well for me since the '60s.

I guess I've used about everything out there (except foreign primers.) I have found some accuracy differences, but I've never fired enough groups side-by-side to call the differences fact and if I tried other batches of the same primers, results might have been different anyway.

I think much of this may be nothing more than worrying about insignificant factors.

Since the Winchester company main powder is a "Ball type"
I would think that is is made up with components that would help
light up this style of powder and have never had any f/f with any of my loads.

This is the first year that I bought any Remington primers, for my pistols & revolvers.
I do like the small package that they come in, compared to the Federal boxs.

Nice test and good information. I have used CCI SP and SPM, Winchester SP and LP primers. No problems with either brand and I agree, given Winchester's extensive use of ball type powders, their use of a "hotter" primer does not surprise me.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

Thanks for this information, very interesting.
I’m curious, in each test series, how many shots are you firing to establish the velocity average?
Thanks again.

After you've been chronographing quite a bit for many years, you can often accurately predict the velocity figures, but it's still a good idea to chronograph a few rounds for verification.

If you're using an entirely new load with different bullet, different bullet weight, new powder, etc., it's best to run ten or so rounds over the chronograph just to make sure of your figures. That's really not enough to verify that a load is consistently accurate, but it's enough for a velocity average.

+1 on sharing your methodical study. I too want to know the sample size.

Thank you. The main reason I ask is because of the ES. When I see a low ES like 9, it makes me wonder the sample size. 10 shots with an ES of 9 would be pretty stellar in my experience.

Don't start chasing ES or SD numbers. This has become a fad in recent years. Many fail to understand the numbers are an indication of consistency only, not accuracy. There are many other factors that make an accurate load. An accurate load may have low numbers, but don't count on it. If you get really wild disparate figures, the load will likely not be accurate.

The very best accuracy indicator is group size, actually several group sizes. I haven't looked at ES or SD numbers in years, but I can develop accurate loads, even if it takes some work.

If all you want are low numbers, make up a compressed load in a bottleneck rifle cartridge. You'll get incredibly low numbers, in fact, several of them might be identical. You might have an accurate load, or you might not.

Measure your groups first, then look at your ES and SD numbers if you must. Good luck-

I completely agree. I've used whatever primers are in stock, and have always found an accurate load. Alot depends on if you have an accurate gun. Some just shoot better than others. I've got alot of Large Pistol Mag primers. I use them for everything. I do know Unique burns alot cleaner with them, and I've had great accuracy in my 45 Colt and 44 Ruger's.

I’m not chasing ES. Just asking sample size.

I didn't mean that offensively; just didn't want you to waste time looking for a good load.

Thank you and I do appreciate your comments. I understand accuracy trumps ES. But I load and chrono a good amount of .44 loads. 2400 is a favorite, and I have a dwindling supply of the old WLP and a large fresh supply of cci 300, so OPs data is pertinent to my interests. Just trying to understand his useful data as best I can.

I have always suspected, but as of yet never tested myself, that 2400 would perform slightly better velocity-wise with a magnum primer. OPs data seems to confirm that.

I often try a magnum primer and a standard one with higher performance loads. If there is no difference in accuracy or the difference is slight at best, I'll go with the primer I have the most of. I think you'll see little or no difference in accuracy or velocity with either primer and #2400 loads, or at least that's been my experience. A twenty fps velocity difference is really no difference.

I tried some 296 loads about fifteen or so years ago in the .357 Magnum with 160 grain cast SWC , the H&G #51, the original .357 Magnum bullet. I'd have to dig out my notes, but 25 yard groups with a magnum primer were around an inch smaller than those with a standard primer. Offhand, I can't recall the brand of primers I used to get these results, but I used the same load with every American-made small pistol primer then available.

296 isn't as useful as #2400. It has a lot of flash and blast and offers a few fps more velocity than #2400, but the mentioned drawbacks plus having to use near-max loads make #2400 more versatile and more pleasant for all uses. However, both powders will deliver the same accuracy. I think what you can say for upper performance .44 Special and .44 Magnum loads applies equally to .357 loads.

I don't get hung up on ES much either. It's noteworthy & can help point to other issues but like you guys I have loads that shoot/group above my expectations that don't have beautiful ESs.

On new loads I like to shoot (10) of each charge weight the first time out, if economics allows.

For this test I shot (6) of each of the seven primers in question. More would have been nice, of course, but with my other involved testing I was limited on the XTPs on-hand & I like doing as much related testing as I can in the same outing with the same components.

Got lots of the Zero's but the Hornadys are much better manufactured bullets which of course you pay for.

I'm not a real stickler on everything numbers but I do like running tests that answer "what if" questions that come up.

I too find 2400 more versatile which is why my W296/H110 hasn't gotten used up yet.

.

Primer related, last year I felt compelled to do a SPP -vs- SRP test in 9x19 since, at the time, CCI-500 were harder to find than CCI-400, just to confirm what was already suspected but was worth a look-see .

Power Pistol &
LongShot charge weights were: 6.4, 6.7 & 7.0grs.
&
AA#7 was 8.4, 8.7 & 9.0grs.
Zero 125gr JHP
COAL: 1.125"

The "fps" readings in the chart's graph below are the average of the (3) different incremental charge weights, for each powder, (10) rounds each, for a total of (30) rounds per (6) graph bars.

Primer comparison, SPP -vs- SRP in 9x19

.



.
.



.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

Thank you BLUEDOT37 so much for your
Research on Magnum Primers.

About a year ago I was just shooting a
300 Winchester Short Magnum.

I found out how much of a difference Large
Rifle Magnum v.s. regular Large Rifle makes
igniting Win. 760 ball powder.

It was Instantaneous v.s. a delay of a Micro
Millionth of a second. Luckily all was quiet
and still around me when shooting or I might
have never noticed.

Also, years ago when I bought my first blue
colored carton of Winchester WLP primers
I wondered about the label for “Standard or
Magnum pistol loads”.

Now I know. Thank you so much.

This thread took a turn to bashing es's.

Apparently unlike most reloaders on this forum, I love the es's.

It tells me that I reloading correctly:
Namely priming/sizing/powder charge/seating/crimping correctly.

I get a +/- 10 fps and I'm good on my die settings/crimp.

How tight is the firearm setup???
I have revolvers that couldn't set off anything but fed1000 and rem 6 1/2 primers if they had to. A chronograph will tell you if a firearm is mechanically correct if you're smart enough to listen ( high es's).

Heck something as simple as cleaning/lube will affect es's. Make no mistake about it, I have the utmost respect for Bluedot. It's something others should keep in mind.

At the end of the day low es's are meaning less with revolvers/pistols until you stretch their legs a little bit.

2" @ 25yds seems to be the internet standard. low es's simply tell you you're doing everything right and simply have the wrong combo for your firearm.

I don't think anyone has denounced ES numbers. Rather they have looked at them for what they are. Again, they are a measure of consistency only, not accuracy. Low numbers are fine, but small groups are meaningful and are what most of us want to achieve. Sometimes the two mesh, but it's not something to count on.

I like the Remington 2 1/2 primers for .45 AR and mid range .44 Magnum loads with the faster burning powders. I have done comparison tests with them and CCI 300s and velocity is almost identical. I like the Remingtons better because ES is less and they are easier to seat. I would not choose either for full power .44 Mag loads. In the .357 magnum I have found that Winchester SPM or SR primers yield the best velocities with 2400 or Longshot and lower ESs compared to any standard primers. And I am one who expects low ESs from my handloads and will not use loads that don't deliver them. That's me, others will differ.

Depends on what you're trying to do.

Try taking ammo with high es's to 22lr benchrest competition and see how far that gets you. Same with 100yd smallbore competitions. Anything in the teens is iffy.

Same goes for the back fence loads (600yds) in service rifle shoots.

Heck try hitting the rams at 200m ammo that has es's in the high 20's.

There's a huge difference between " small groups are meaningful and are what most of us want to achieve" and what is needed to not only compete in different shooting sports. What's needed to excel in them.

Things like recoil impulses & bullet dwell time come into play.

Sure these are small groups.


More importantly those loads were designed to be used in shotgun shell shoots. Same rules/table as bowling pins except for using 12ga (red) shotgun shells and they are shot @ 50ft instead of the typical 25ft. A speed shoot at close range, myself I'd rather have a +/- 20fps es load than a 100fps+ load. Both the 20es and 100es loads will hold 1/2" groups @ 50ft. Consistency ='s accuracy and a consistent recoil is easier to be accurate with.

Same with these 10-shot groups @ 50ft. They need to be +/- 1" to be able to hold the x-ring on the 50ft targets. A +/- 100fps es load will be able to hold that 1" @ 50ft. But that +/- 100fps es load makes things a little hard to keep in the x-ring during competitions.



a couple 5-shot groups @ 50ft. I know the 200gr h&g/4,3gr load will hold under 1" @ 50ft. Was testing the other 2 bullets. Anyway all 3 held 1" or less. The top right target was shot 1 handed (bullseye hold) with 3 shots fired slow fire (same horizontal group) as the test group. The high low shots were from holding the 1911 load and raising it up doing a double tap.


Anyway, accuracy is 1 thing. Highly controllable accuracy is highly sought after/more desirable.

I maintain group size as being the ultimate test of a good load, regardless of distance. I'm not speaking of measuring one or two or three small groups and calling a load accurate.

Ther is no denying that small groups and small numbers can coincide. I mentioned that in an earlier post, I just wouldn't count on that happening with great frequency. "Highly controllable accuracy" is arguable as to meaning. If you fire twenty groups with a handgun or rifle and all groups are incredibly small, that could be one definition of highly controllable accuracy or just accuracy. "Highly controllable" seems somewhat ambivalent or maybe unclear in this case.

I stand by my comments. Just call me a hardcore imperfectionist who likes small groups, but, as always, I respect your remarks as well as your judgements based on observations.

My attitude is when comparing 2 slightly different loads. One has a lower es, and one is more accurate. Am going to pick the more accurate one.

Then there is the number of rounds and groups fired to have a statistically relevant es. As the number of rounds/groups fired increases, other factors can come into play.

I agree, and ... we all know what has worked well for us. However, without very extensive testing, we'll never have an approximate percentage of "tightest groups with low numbers" vs. "tightest groups with mediocre numbers", or however you wish to phrase it.

The cost, time, and effort involved in such a project would be so great that no one would undertake the task if it was done right, and right would be the only way to do it. In it's place we have many small perfect and inperfect piecemeal projects with bits of excellent information mixed with flawed information.

This can be likened to the subject of barrel break-in vs. no barrel break-in. The definitive report will never be attempted let alone done because of factors already mentioned here. So we argue and present our viewpoints based on experience, but never really solve anything.

Do what works for you; maybe some things aren't really worth worrying or arguing about.

Here's some more info

4.25" FA97
45 Colt
OAL 1.600"
305 Gr SWCGC .452" (Matts Saeco)
22.5gr H110
1x Starline 45 Colt
65 Deg F
5 Shots at 5 long paces
Velocity with indicated primers (never had any Rem)


.
Paul

I'm sure you would stand by your statement.

Others will break out a chronograph and not even put a target up. If the es's are too large that load/ammo can't even be used to be completive.

At the end of the day consistency ='s accuracy. You might have a load with an es of 1fps/100 shot group and not perform well. The turn of the coin is that your reloading skills and firearm is spot on. Now it's a simple matter of finding the right combo.

Back in the day I shot a lot of 22lr firearms. The 1st order of business was to find a lot of ammo (could care less about groups) that was in the single digits. I'd buy at least a case of it if not 2 cases. From there I could test new firearms or firearms that were worked on with this ammo. Hence, a know firearm shot a 20-shot string with single digit es's with this ammo. And a new or worked on firearm shot the same ammo in the 20/30 es's, that's called a clue.

That carried over to other center fire competitions.

Plinking doesn't matter, but being able to identify consistency will transfer to paper.

Plinking loads with a 10" bbl'd contender/44mag. Put a reddot on it and walked the zero of a fast fire 3 reddot in to bang on 6" steel offhand @ 100yds. Shot this benchrest target starting with the top left. When I got the adjustments dow I ran the bottom targets. After getting serous and shooting the bottom right target and gave the reddot 3 clicks down and 1 click left.

You really think that load was +/- 100fps on the es's to run 1" at 100yds?


This is what large es's look like, 2" groups @ 50yds. Didn't matter the load/bullet, the es's were in the +/- 20fps range.


Good enough for most reloaders.

Myself. I always want quality ammo. Especially when I take the time to cast/swage my own bullets then reload them. It all costs the same. But when I can see a consistent es for a caliber/powder combo it pretty easy to use that same amount of powder and 5/6/10 different bullets and get reasonable accuracy.

Kind of hard to get high es's and say the same thing.

Garbage in garbage out.

I have used nothing but Remington 2 1/2 primers with black powder in my .45-70 BPCR silhouette rifle. In BPCR circles the Remingtons are believed to have a “softer” ignition which helps produce lower SD and more consistent velocities with black powder. I don’t think they are anything close to a magnum primer.

It makes sense to think they’d cover both uses, but it's still a gray area. I’ve also started using some Remington 2½ primers, and the lack of clear labeling on these new bricks is frustrating. From what I understand, since they only produce one type of large pistol primer, it’s hard to tell if they’re standard or magnum without explicit info.