:: Forums »

#46: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: chambered221, Location: Lost for good !!!

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:20 am
----
I knew that some time ago Federal revamped the rather weak 205M to a hotter primer.......... just didn't know they turned it into a magnum.

#47: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: 44marty, Location: Cheshire, MA; USA

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:23 pm
----
The Rem 7 1/2 and Fed 205M are both "match" or "benchrest" primers - Hotter than standard primers. Hornady's manual lists them as magnum primers in their primer comparison table. The Rem 7 1/2 is approximately equivalent to CCI small rifle magnum primers (CCI 450).
I was getting no difference in either velocity or accuracy using Rem 7 1/2 and CCI 450 in my .204 given the same brass, bullets and powder charges.

#48: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: chambered221, Location: Lost for good !!!

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:06 am
----

44marty wrote:

Magnum primers are recommended for the .204 in all the loading manuals I have ever seen (six different manufacturers' manuals)

Are you calling the Federal 205M a magnum primer by chance ???
I see it listed more than any others in the .204
The "M" stands for "Match" not magnum. Federal has confused a lot of re-loaders with this one !!!

#49: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: HayCreek, Location: Central ND

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:15 pm
----
Marty -

My Lyman and Hornady manuals say Rem 7 1/2 (not really 'magnum' primers). No mention of magnum primers being recommended for the .204 Ruger. Not to say they can't be used, but I've never found them necessary for accuracy or reliable ignition.
H4895 or IMR8208XBR with Rem 7 1/2 primers produce excellent accuracy and velocity.

On the subject of primers for the .204; don't use CCI 400s. Way too soft a cup for the pressures the .204 develops, except at very light loads.

Last edited by HayCreek on Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:20 pm; edited 1 time in total

#50: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: 44marty, Location: Cheshire, MA; USA

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:57 pm
----

Warnberg wrote:

would it be safe to assume that the start load would be safe with a magnum primer?

i.e. this is according to berger's load chart for thier bullet

40gr Berger BT (bullet) ruger 204
H414 powder
start load 26.0 gr (safe to use magnum primer starting here)?
Max load 28.8 gr

Again, Warnberg, you are talking about the .204 - Magnum primers are recommended for the .204 in all the loading manuals I have ever seen (six different manufacturers' manuals). I would hesitate to try standard (non-magnum) primers in .204 cartridges.

#51: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: Ominivision1, Location: Iowa

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:38 am
----
Warnberg:

If you use a mag primer and start with min recommended load, you'll be ok.

#52: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: Warnberg, Location: Tampa, Florida

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:58 am
----
would it be safe to assume that the start load would be safe with a magnum primer?

i.e. this is according to berger's load chart for thier bullet

40gr Berger BT (bullet) ruger 204
H414 powder
start load 26.0 gr (safe to use magnum primer starting here)?
Max load 28.8 gr

#53: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: MacD, Location: Canada

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:32 am
----

SingleShotLover wrote:

While I strongly agree that magnum primers should not normally be used in non-magnum cartridges, as with most things there are a few exceptions. One of these is when using ball or spherical powders. These powders usually have a heavier protective coating than "stick" or "short-cut" powders and often give inconsistent ignition, particularly in cold weather. It should be up to the individual to conduct "due diligence" and research the powders with which they are working to see if this is a fit for their application.

And, as always, if making a change to magnum primers, be sure to reduce the load and carefully work up.

Thanks for this. I like to hunt in cold weather and was avoiding those powders as they show temperature sensitivity.

#54: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: SingleShotLover, Location: Illinois

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:52 am
----
While I strongly agree that magnum primers should not normally be used in non-magnum cartridges, as with most things there are a few exceptions. One of these is when using ball or spherical powders. These powders usually have a heavier protective coating than "stick" or "short-cut" powders and often give inconsistent ignition, particularly in cold weather. It should be up to the individual to conduct "due diligence" and research the powders with which they are working to see if this is a fit for their application.

And, as always, if making a change to magnum primers, be sure to reduce the load and carefully work up.

#55: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: PaulS, Location: South-Eastern Washington - the State

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:13 pm
----
Unless the manual specifies magnum primers use the standard primer. If you want to switch to magnum primers then reduce the load and start working the load up from there.
NOTE: magnum primers and light loads are not necessarily safe. Magnum primers can cause detonation with light loads if too much powder is ignited at once. Powder is supposed to ignite and burn from a single end (or side) to the other end (or side). If it starts burning in more than one place the flame and shock fronts meet causing a rapid rise in pressure that can be well over what a normal burn would produce. This is more likely to happen with slow burning powders and double base powders but it is not limited to those powders.
Please be careful.

#56: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: 44marty, Location: Cheshire, MA; USA

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:33 pm
----
Oh, forgot to mention this, but 1895's post reminded me. I tried comparing chrono results between rounds frozen (-4* F for three days in the freezer) and rounds at 75* F, using several powders. All were .204 rounds with magnum primers. NO misfires (40 rounds total). There was absolutely no difference at all between frozen and warm rounds using 8208XBR and IMR 4895 powders, and only about 60 to 150 fps difference using IMR 6064 and IMR 3031 powders. Velocity range over all the different loadings was 3650 to 3900 fps, so this was a very small percentage. The 3031 and 4895 loads were slightly compressed, the 6064 had a little room left, and the 8208XBR left lots of airspace.

Edit: The 3031 had the widest spread on the chrono, but still the best results for accuracy.

#57: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: 1895ss, Location: Not Here...!!

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:14 pm
----

inthedark wrote:

Hey MacD
I use magum primers in both my 22-250 and 308 loads WHEN I am hunting in 0 degree F or below weather. I have found that using the magum primers in warm weather throws my accuracy right out the window. And as I am in brisk old Saskatchewan, I have had plenty of experience with the benefits of mag primers.

My Brother in-law used to have a .17 rem center fire and I used to load ammo for him. We where out coyote hunting one cold winter day (Southern Sask.) and he was getting a misfire about every other round. A couple days later I worked up a new load for him, using magnum primers, and he never had another misfire. Accuracy was the same.

I use mag primers in my 25-06 but standard primers in all the rest.

#58: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: 44marty, Location: Cheshire, MA; USA

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 12:53 pm
----

Warnberg wrote:

Here was my thought and I could be all wet... but I have "heard" in the 204 partially compressed loads preform better with a magnum primer and that the 204 seems to just like partially compressed loads. So I specifically started working with a load that once worked up to max (as long as no over pressure signs where present) would end in a 100% plus fill ratio. My current test loads are with the standard CCI 400 primer. With that in mind I was thinking that a magnum primer would work better to fully ignite all the powder, thus giving better performance...

Am I on the right track?

FYI, I will also be testing the 35gr Berger and the 32gr Hornady V-max

Thanks

Dave

Hi Dave, you are on the right track for sure. My .204 was by far most accurate with slightly compressed loads. The Sierra bullets, especially the 39gr Blitz King had a very slight edge over the Hornady bullets. I did not experiment with standard primers, but used only magnum primers as this is what was recommended in all the reloading manuals (CCI450 and Rem 7 1/2). I tried Varget (not so good results) and several IMR powders. The best results for accuracy were with IMR 3031 powder. IMR 4895 also worked quite well. Interestingly, IMR 4064 gave the most consistent chrono results (least deviation) but not the best accuracy. The only signs I ever had of pressure issues was with 8208XBR powder - cratered primers well below the max listed loads.
The loads my rifle especially liked were both with IMR 3031 powder in Nosler Custom brass (Rem bulk brass also ok):
25.6gr powder with the Sierra 39gr bullet
26.5gr powder with the 32gr bullet
Rem 7 1/2 and CCI 450 primers gave identical accuracy and chrono results.

#59: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: Warnberg, Location: Tampa, Florida

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:26 am
----
Don't get me wrong, I work toward max load, rarely do I find that a max load provides best performance/accuracy...

This particular caliber I am starting at minimum... 26.0gr and step up .3 grains at a time...

i.e. 5 @ 26.0, 5 @ 26.3, 5 @ 26.6, 5 @ 26.9, etc.... ending around 28.5gr provided I do not see any signs of over pressure before then, if I do I stop and call it a day pulling the rest of the test loads...

I was just curious as to what a magnum primer would do to my results of my load, performance, accuracy, etc.... Again I have heard that this particular caliber likes full cases and magnum primers but I have not confirmed that hence the question and the test loads....

FYI... this was my brothers gun, he suggested a particular load all within specs for the reloading manual, he lives at 5500ft, those same loads at sea level showed cratering primers, typical over pressure signs.

Thanks

#60: Re: magnum v regular primers Author: TRBLSHTR, Location: Lower 48's-left coast(near portlandia)

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:11 am
----
Bang Head

Warnberg-This may/may not apply to your situation...but with the 204(of which I do not own one)However a couple of my shooting buddies do,and I am impressed whith the ballistics.That being said;I would hesitate to go maximum loads all at once as the 204-which as I recall was derived from necking down the 222 rem magnum,and the 222magnum was not adopted by the military for being hard on the throat of the barrel.Now if barrel prices are no object to you-then full speed ahead.I have found that most of (my) reloads work with the most accuracy between starting loads and max(never max).YMMV!One othe example;a lifetime shooting/hunting reloading bud of mine was starting to reload for a .17 remington that his father gave him,absolute tack driver-an original rem 700 I think,but he was loading with somebody else while I was out of state,(and their may have been some of Vince's "turps" involved),but when we took his gun to the range all it did was key hole every bullet @100yds.We took the loads home and out of curiosity pulled a couple and weighed the charge against the listed book load and found that they were all over max by a half a grain.Small cases seem to develope exponential problems with a little more powder.He lowered the powder and took it shooting again but it would not stabilize the bullets any longer.He sent it back to remington and they confirmed that the throat was "washed" and charged him and installed a new barrel.The gun shhots like new again. That is why I personally did'nt go with light speed cartridges like the 204 or 220 swift.I like to shoot more than replacing barrels. Very Happy

-> Reloading Ammunition

All times are GMT - 7 Hours

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next :| |: Page 4 of 6