I've used small rifle primers in reloading .38spl and .357mag in the past with no noticeable difference from small pistol primers. I have read about people claiming that they tend to be harder and not as reliable but I have not experienced that personally. Now my question: I can buy CCI 400 small rifle primers right now on sale for $17.34 out the door for boxes of 1000. Would you stock up at that price?
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
CCI 400 SR primer question
- Thread starter Celeste
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Dragon88
Member
You should not be using rifle primers in pistol cartridges. How's that couple dollars of savings going to feel when you blow up a gun?
papajohn428
Member
That's absolutely ludicrous. Nothing like trying to incite a little hysteria. Are you related to Sarah Brady or Paul Helmke, by chance? Good grief.
It was a serious question........and my serious answer is that if you're already getting good results, I would go ahead and stock up. CCI's primers tend to be a little harder than most, but I've used them in 357 rifle loads, and they worked fine.
Paul5388
US Veteran
I use CCI 400s in a lot of handgun cartridges and never have a problem, unless someone has been monkeying with the mainspring trying to get the trigger pull lighter.
Here's the data on CCI primers and the energy available on each type.
http://www.bbhfarm.com/albums/album11/aad.jpg
Here's the data on CCI primers and the energy available on each type.
http://www.bbhfarm.com/albums/album11/aad.jpg
rsrocket1
Member
SR primers have been all I've used in my Service Six 38/357 and M&P 40. They are modern guns with good firing pins. I make sure the primers are seated all the way in and have never had a single misfire. Perhaps the only concern is with an old gun with a weakened firing pin mechanism.
Blowing up a gun by using a SR primer instead of a SP primer is FUD. Especially if you work up your rounds using SR primers exclusively.
Being that the metal is slightly thicker, don't look for flattened primers as a sign of overpressure, they probably won't flatten until the pressure is way up there.
At $17.34/k I'd scoop up as many as I can afford. Primers don't get stale.
Blowing up a gun by using a SR primer instead of a SP primer is FUD. Especially if you work up your rounds using SR primers exclusively.
Being that the metal is slightly thicker, don't look for flattened primers as a sign of overpressure, they probably won't flatten until the pressure is way up there.
At $17.34/k I'd scoop up as many as I can afford. Primers don't get stale.
Alk8944
US Veteran
Have you ever tried it and used a chronograph to verify results? Bet you haven't.
With most powders used for handgun loads, ones that are not so slow burning that they require a Magnum primer, about the only difference you will see is a tendency for small rifle primers to give somwhat more consistent results than SPM. Velocity variation with all three primers will usually not exceed the Standard Deviation of any individual primer.
This doesn't include slow "Ball" types such as HS-6, H-110/296 or Lil Gun. With these the SR gives about the same or more consistent performance than the SPM.
This isn't from "everybody knows", but rather from chronographing hundreds of otherwise identical loads to see just what difference the primer makes in revolvers. The result in every case was, for practical purposes, not enough to notice.
Thanks for posting that (again I believe?) I was searching for it the other day and was going nuts trying to find it. I knew I had seen it recently.
Paul5388
US Veteran
They get upset if I post copyright material, so I have to link to it. But, that still gives you access to the information. 
They get upset if I post copyright material, so I have to link to it. But, that still gives you access to the information.
I have had that page bookmarked for a while but forgot that's where it was.
Isn't that your web page??
Interesting note on the primer energy. It is listing Ft lbs of energy which is torque, but if I recall correctly that does not equate to pressure. As it says in the fine print, a LRM primer can generated 25,000 psi when ignited in a small chamber.
So even though the primer energy is very close between a SP and a SR there is no data as to how much it increases pressure.
I am not disagreeing with those who use SR in place of SP primers, just saying.
Paul5388
US Veteran
That chart came from Speer #7 and it's the only one I've ever seen with that information. I would think the only way to move the piston they used is with pressure, so it's indirectly a measurement of pressure.
This may be a better page to bookmark, BBHFarm Gallery :: Reloading Manuals since it has access to the manuals.
This may be a better page to bookmark, BBHFarm Gallery :: Reloading Manuals since it has access to the manuals.
rsrocket1
Member
Foot-pounds is the correct unit for torque, but it is also the correct unit for energy.
Energy = force x distance = (pressure x area) x distance
rsrocket1
Member
So force is equal to (pressure x area)?
Physics was a long, long time ago.
Yup,
(pounds per square inch) times (square inches) = pounds
I was told a Physics major was too general, but it comes in handy because its everywhere
.
