Substituting pirimers an answer maybe

[Johnnu2]

I got this video from a range buddy. It's a high quality video from a professional reloading company explaining that it is SAFE to substitute small pistol primers with small pistol magnum or even small rifle primers. It also discusses primer cup strength and weak springs etc etc. This guy shows all the correct pressure testing data, AND actual range/velocity testing data to demonstrate the safety. It's about 10 mins. long. I'm not expert enough to concur or disagree with this guy, but I thought it was worth passing it on.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGVRGsoOr6k[/ame]

 

[reddog81]

Sample size of three and he ignores the outlier! Anyone who knows anything about sampling or data analysis would be leery of those results.

 

[Fishslayer]

Sample size of three and he ignores the outlier! Anyone who knows anything about sampling or data analysis would be leery of those results.

I would have liked to see a larger sample size. 9mm is kind of sensitive to changes, like OAL.

It's pretty common practice to sub SRP for SPP. I've also seen it suggested that SPM is actually nothing more than SRP in a different box.

 

[reddog81]

I would have liked to see a larger sample size. 9mm is kind of sensitive to changes, like OAL.

It's pretty common practice to sub SRP for SPP. I've also seen it suggested that SPM is actually nothing more than SRP in a different box.

True, but the test in question only leaves me with more questions than answers. When one data point is 20% higher than others and outside slightly outside SAAMI specs a further analysis is needed.

 

[alwslate]

This question comes up often. Do a search on this subject and read more than you ever wanted to know. The short answer is that SRPs are basically identical in performance to SPMPs and can be substituted for plain old SPPs unless your loads are at absolutely top pressure limit.

 

[Sevens]

I would like to have seen the pressure testing rig up close, and learn more about the unit -- where you can get something like this, how much it costs, how prevalent these are in use, etc.

For many years we've hand lots of handloaders using simulation software (FastLoad and others) and while the software is a powerful tool, it admittedly doesn't do nearly as well with straight wall handgun ammo as it does with bottle neck rifle ammo.

When a privately owned chronograph became a reality in the 70's, it was an expensive tool but technology brought it down to where it's cost is hardly a thought these days.

It makes me wonder or hope if a pressure testing rig is something that a home handloader will be able to get for himself eventually.

 

[reddog81]

This question comes up often. Do a search on this subject and read more than you ever wanted to know. The short answer is that SRPs are basically identical in performance to SPMPs and can be substituted for plain old SPPs unless your loads are at absolutely top pressure limit.

I would tend to agree, however if you ignore/dismiss any data that contradicts your preconceived notions it can lead to flawed decision making.

Here's a link to a recent test preformed by a member of another site I visit. Comparison of various SP and SR primers in the 357 Magnum

 

[ruggyh]

I would like to have seen the pressure testing rig up close, and learn more about the unit -- where you can get something like this, how much it costs, how prevalent these are in use, etc.

A universal receiver cost about $12,000.
Test barrel $700-$1000 each
Transducer $1000 each
The collection electronics for SAAMI system $10,000-$12000 depend on manufacture.
The had a bullet trap directly connected to the test barrel which I have no familiarity.

In short a SAAMI test system cost about $30000.

You can find the correct pressure test procedure (SAAMI) on SAAMI website.

The testing lacking detail to determine if performed properly.
As another observation each cartridge and powder has a different behavioral profile so testing 9mm doesn't mean a other small primer cartridges or powder will have a the same behavior.

Bottom line- ask yourself why would the industry have 4 different primers (5 if include match) if it there is no difference.
The packaging, inventory, and sales management overhead would be not be worth the cost.

Primers do make a difference in the internal ballistics, use them properly or you may end up with a stubbed toe or worse.

For those that "have been interchanging primers for years and nothing bad has happened" crowd- remember this anecdotal comment.

 

[ruggyh]

I would tend to agree, however if you ignore/dismiss any data that contradicts your preconceived notions it can lead to flawed decision making.

Here's a link to a recent test preformed by a member of another site I visit. Comparison of various SP and SR primers in the 357 Magnum

From the link in Larry desription

The test firearm was my Contender 7.94" barrel with the strain gauge located over the chamber as per SAAMI specification. The strain gauge was connected to the Oehler m43 PBL. Test conditions were a reasonable 60 degrees with 30% humidity and little to no wind. The velocity listed is muzzle velocity as the M43 corrects the screened velocity to the muzzle. The Oehler Sky-screen start screen was 10' from the muzzle.

Strain gauge is not an excepted in SAAMI testing capture method- their process requires transducer based pressure collection.

That said that does not mean his method is not valid as I personally have used strain gauges to collect pressure data but found they need to calibrated against know sample (which are available from the munitions producers and called out in SAAMI documentation)

Another thing that bothers me is the attempt to correlate pressure directly velocity. If you were to compare each curves against each other over a wide range of loading (with the same bullet /powder combination) you will see that is not possible.

Velocity doesn't infer a pressure, velocity is a result of the total summed pressure under pressure curve.

 

[GypsmJim]

"I been doin dat for fitty fi years and havnt had a problem yet" (said with an old codger voice)

"Aw, it'll be alright" (said with a youngins voice)

"Don't worry bout it" (said with a redneck voice)

"I think it'll be OK" (said with a novice voice)

My buddy was in the 4th category. I said I'll approve it for you if you show me published data in a printed manual.

Truth is, if you have a rifle and a pistol and you load for both of them, why would you use one in the other? You have to buy primers for both anyway. If you ran out of one, so sorry so sad you should have planned ahead.

Personally, my fingers and my eyesight are worth more than that.

 

[Sevens]

Appreciate the rundown ruggyb and I've always enjoyed your posts in S&W X-frame conversations. If I may ask, what is your background that you have so much familiarity with this expensive equipment?

And what might be our expectation that boutique ammo makers have this equipment?

I have comments on two points you made. One is your last bit about our experiences being anecdotal evidence and I totally agree however for my comfort level, when it is my experience being used for future loads at my bench, that absolutely fits in to my comfort zone.

The other point is when you asked WHY companies would offer 4 or 5 different products in the same size if they weren't different, and if it would make any financial sense.

Two part answer: oh they absolutely will, and many companies will even admit it if asked properly. Some companies will produce superfluous products not only because they do sell, but because they are asked for specifically by the customer base. And for the second part, we've had folks dig deep in to CCI small pistol magnum and CCI small rifle non-magnum primers and CCI representatives and ATK ballisticians have confirmed in the somewhat recent past (within the last ten years) that the makeup of these two products is the same.

This is not information that will be blared out loud on their website and frankly, this could have changed last year, last week or next Thursday, but it has still happened.

For my buck with my anecdotal evidence (agree fully, that's all it is!), if I am -NOT- running the ragged edge of redline in my loads, I'm not worried about testing different primers in different places. And I have some PPC revolvers that will fail to fire 2 to 4 rounds per cylinder with CCI-500 SP, and run 100% with never a fail when given the Federal-100. That right there is decades-long-held anecdotal evidence that is absolutely rock solid at my load bench and with my guns, so as far as my handloads are concerned... it is LAW, even if it too is anecdotal evidence.

 

[RussellD]

Lots of volume shooters in competition have thousands of rounds of experience using SPP in 9mm and .38 Super.

Completely different dynamic than a revolver tuned to where it demands Federal primers to be reliable.

My autos retain the original springs and will pop every brand of primer I have tried. Have I loaded SRP in 9mm. Small sample size of a few thousand. I really like them in 9mm carbines.

YMMV

 

[reddog81]

From the link in Larry desription

Strain gauge is not an excepted in SAAMI testing capture method- their process requires transducer based pressure collection.

That said that does not mean his method is not valid as I personally have used strain gauges to collect pressure data but found they need to calibrated against know sample (which are available from the munitions producers and called out in SAAMI documentation)

Another thing that bothers me is the attempt to correlate pressure directly velocity. If you were to compare each curves against each other over a wide range of loading (with the same bullet /powder combination) you will see that is not possible.

Velocity doesn't infer a pressure, velocity is a result of the total summed pressure under pressure curve.

That's all fine and good, but I still question anyone who uses a sample size of 3 and tosses out 1 of the data points. Larry's data seems to indicate the 20% spike wasn't just a one off reading that can be ignored. Like I said in post 4, the video leaves me with more questions than answers.

I don't know anything about pressure testing, but I can tell you his analysis of the data is severely lacking.

 

[ruggyh]

Appreciate the rundown ruggyb and I've always enjoyed your posts in S&W X-frame conversations. If I may ask, what is your background that you have so much familiarity with this expensive equipment?

I have some of this equipment and perform pressure testing.

Appreciate the rundown ruggybAnd what might be our expectation that boutique ammo makers have this equipment?

Yes, some do a have least minimal test equipment- though owning the equipment does not mean and a full understanding of internal ballistics.

...we've had folks dig deep in to CCI small pistol magnum and CCI small rifle non-magnum primers and CCI representatives and ATK ballisticians have confirmed in the somewhat recent past (within the last ten years) that the makeup of these two products is the same.

All the brisance testing I have been involved with begs to differ.
The flame propagation signatures, specific heat values and duration have shown marked difference between manufacture and type. SAAMI has a testing process for primers as does the US DOD.

I am not familiar with ATK ballisticians- please point me in their direction.

The only information I have seen from directly CCI is that the compound used to produce their primers is the same and their match line primers are produced under supervision of senior staff for consistency compared to their regular line.

 

[Sevens]

I guess I was asking if you have experience loading commercially, because the experience you could share with that would be extremely interesting I think.

ATK ballisticians — Bem Amonette and two others whose names I can't recall at the moment, guys who were answering any/all questions regarding Speer/Alliant/CCI/Federal and the endless brands that were all assembled under the ATK conglomerate.

I'll guess these gentlemen are still doing what they do however I have not kept up with all the brands and who owns them since ATK split off many of it's holdings.

As for the Federal primer/PPC revolver, I was merely using that as an example of (long time) anecdotal evidence that is SO STRONG that it is basically a law. At the same time, I completely agree that stock guns don't tend to have any struggle with small rifle primers, and I use them a lot in a number of my handguns.

 

[Engineer1911]

Another quest for perfection. Or 'close enough if that is all you have' , folks that stay in the middle don't have to worry about squibs, fractured guns, crossing the center line, or falling off the shoulder.

 

[ruggyh]

That's all fine and good, but I still question anyone who uses a sample size of 3 and tosses out 1 of the data points. Larry's data seems to indicate the 20% spike wasn't just a one off reading that can be ignored. Like I said in post 4, the video leaves me with more questions than answers.

I don't know anything about pressure testing, but I can tell you his analysis of the data is severely lacking.

and I agree with you

Relevant statistical sample size seems to be lost on the shooting community at large, sample size of 3 or 5 seems to some how be statically relevant and flyers somehow ignored.

 

[ggibson511960]

I would not be so quick to critique this fellow for a small sample size. He did not attempt to present calculated average, extreme spread or standard deviation of pressures. The criticism about sample weakens if no statistical calculation is asserted. This exercise is a demonstration for one load recipe scenario. If you load from a published loading manual to tested recipes, this is approximately what you're doing. The gentleman presented the data, such that it is, and gave appropriate warnings. I cannot fault him. That said, it would have been interesting to see a close up of the fired primers to shed some light on the assertion of harder, thicker, tougher primer cup material. He talks a lot about light primer strikes and a cursory examination of the fired primers would have at least demonstrated that this firearm did an adequate job on all three primer types. This is way more information than primer manufacturers present to the public. I fear they will never present more.

 

[SMSgt]

Ironically I just today watched a video where a guy loaded his pet 6.5 Creedmore (?) load with magnum primers instead of his usual standard primers. He had one primer pop out, and when checking the primer pockets with a primer pocket gauge in the batch of cases he fired, all of them were oversized and failed the go/no-go test.

Tread lightly when deviating from stand loads and components.

 

[reddog81]

I would not be so quick to critique this fellow for a small sample size. He did not attempt to present calculated average, extreme spread or standard deviation of pressures. The criticism about sample weakens if no statistical calculation is asserted. .... I cannot fault him.

The dude is selling a product... Bring Your Own Primers. The conclusion he draws is incorrect based upon the data he presented. His lack of analysis is the problem.