WLP - Rem 2½ primers, are they magnum primers? The 44 test

[Forrest r]

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.

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.

 

[rockquarry]

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.

 

[zeke]

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.

 

[rockquarry]

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.

 

[Paul105]

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

 

[Forrest r]

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.

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.

 

[dnater]

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.

 

[Mawaylixx]

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.