Primers

[Cornbread lawman]

I've heard some range talk, that some primers are harder then others. I just started reloading, and have been using some CCI small pistol primers that my Dad has had in his garage for about ten years. With my first batch of reloads I had a bunch of failure to fires on my '66. All fired on second strike. All popped in a Ruger. So I don't think the primers are bad,the hammer fall on the '66 is a little soft. I've already cranked the hammer tension screw down all the way. I guess my question is their a difference in primer hardness?

[Chickahominy Charlie]

It is my experience that there is a hardness difference. I have used CCI Small Pistol primers without issue in my .40 S&W handgun for some time. However, when I began loading .38 special for a .357 Dan Wesson I own, I could not get the rounds to fire in double action. They fired fine if utilizing single action. Evidently, the hammer fall is greater in single action. I then began using Federal Primers for those rounds I loaded for the Dan Wesson and this fixed the problem.

 

Armed with this information, when I began the cowboy game, I've used nothing but Federal Primers for my cowboy loads. If the pistol (or rifle) has had some action work, the hammer fall may be lessened during the process and I don't need FTF issues when I'm on the clock.

 

I cannot comment on where the "other" (Winchester, etc.) fall on this "hardness" scale, but I've heard that CCI is normally considered "the hardest" of the primers.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Chick

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

Federals are the gold standard for easiest to fire primers. All others are harder and vary a bit between companies.

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

I've heard some range talk, that some primers are harder then others. I just started reloading, and have been using some CCI small pistol primers that my Dad has had in his garage for about ten years. With my first batch of reloads I had a bunch of failure to fires on my '66. All fired on second strike. All popped in a Ruger. So I don't think the primers are bad,the hammer fall on the '66 is a little soft. I've already cranked the hammer tension screw down all the way. I guess my question is their a difference in primer hardness?

It's possible the primers aren't seated all the way in the case. If the hammer is a bit light on the '66, the first strike seats the primer and the second strike fires it.

 

As for primer hardness, I've used CCI, Federal & Winchester and can't tell any difference since they all go bang on the first try. As long as they do that, nothing else really matters.

 

Welcome to reloading!

[Lazarus Longshot, SASS #44254 Life]

Primarily anecdotal evidence, but multiple posts over the years indicate that CCI are the hardest primers, followed by Winchester, Remington and Federal. My experience is that Wolfs fall between Winchester and Remington.

[twelve mile REB]

Primer hardness or lack of it becomes a problem as you decrease the power or your springs.

As you have been told the Federal primers are the standard match primers of those that are trying to squeese every hundredth of a second out of their equipment. So it goes like this.

Soft to hard

federal

winchester

wolf - remington

cci

 

12

Edited March 23, 2011 by twelve mile REB

[Big Jake1001]

Do a Google search on the word "Brisance" and you'll learn why some primers go bang easier than others.

Most all primers have the same cup metal thickness, but it's what each manufacture puts in it's primer mixture that makes a difference. People think that some are hard and some are softer, but it's the brisance mix that makes it seem that way. Just sayin'

 

Big Jake

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

....However, when I began loading .38 special for a .357 Dan Wesson I own, I could not get the rounds to fire in double action. They fired fine if utilizing single action. Evidently, the hammer fall is greater in single action.

 

Howdy

 

Yes, the single action hammer fall is heavier in a double action revolver than the double action hammer fall. It is the nature of the action. When the trigger is pulled double action, the trigger pulls the sear forward, pivoting the hammer back. When the hammer rotates far enough, the sear slips off the trigger, allowing the hammer to fall. When the hammer is cocked single action, it must be pulled back farther than the double action tripping point in order for the hammer to go to full cock. This means the spring will be compressed a bit more in single action mode.

 

In the old days, the hammer on many DA revolvers went a whole lot farther back in single action than in double action. The engineers at S&W reasoned that there was enough spring compression at the double action falling off point to fire a cartridge, and the extra pull back was unnecessary. So in the 1950s they redesigned the mechanism and came up with what is known as the 'short throw' action. Ever since then, the single action pull of the hammer is only slightly farther back than the double action tripping point on a S&W. But it is still a little bit farther back. I am not familiar enough with a Dan Wesson revolver to know how much farther back the single action cocking position is, but it has to be at least a little bit farther back.

 

It is a fairly common complaint that sometimes a DA revolver will not fire some primers double action but it will fire the same primers single action. Particularly if the hammer spring strain screw has been let out to lighten the hammer force. I am pretty sure the story is the same with DA/SA Semi-Automatic pistols for the same reason.

 

Do a Google search on the word "Brisance" and you'll learn why some primers go bang easier than others.

Most all primers have the same cup metal thickness, but it's what each manufacture puts in it's primer mixture that makes a difference. People think that some are hard and some are softer, but it's the brisance mix that makes it seem that way.

 

Brisance is simply the shock a primer produces when it fires. It does not define how easily a primer ignites. The priming material in a primer ignites when the firing pin blow compresses it between the primer cup and the anvil. The rapid compression generates a spike of heat. That is true no matter if a firing pin strikes a primer, a C&B hammer strikes a percussion cap, or a hammer strikes an anvil. There will always be a heat spike generated. Now just for the fun of it, I went downstairs to the ammo mine and measured a bunch of primer cups. I've been meaning to empty out the jar under one of my presses for some time now, but I'm glad I didn't yet. Sure enough, both the Winchester and Federal large pistol primers that had had their anvils knocked out when they were decapped both measured about .014 thick. I measured enough to get a pretty good feel for it, they are both basically the same thickness. Sorry, I am not set up to determine if the cup of one is actually harder than the other. So I suspect that Federal may make their priming compound just a little bit more sensitive to heat so that they will fire with a slightly lighter firing pin blow. After all, I read a long time ago that rimfire priming has a tiny bit of ground glass added to it, to create a little bit more friction when the firing pin strikes, thus generating a little bit more heat, ensuring ignition.

 

But I don't think Brisance is the key here, I think it is what is in the mix.

 

Anyway, in my experience, Federal primers are the easiest to set off, followed by Winchester.

 

By the way, I have often read that rifle primers are a little bit harder than pistol primers, to better contain the higher pressure. That will be my next primer research project, next time I load up some rifle ammo.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

Yes federals are the easiest to ignite as they are the only company that still uses the old formula.Also remember you can seat your primers to deep that will also cause a problem.

 

 

T J B

[Chickahominy Charlie]

Howdy

 

Yes, the single action hammer fall is heavier in a double action revolver than the double action hammer fall. It is the nature of the action. When the trigger is pulled double action, the trigger pulls the sear forward, pivoting the hammer back. When the hammer rotates far enough, the sear slips off the trigger, allowing the hammer to fall. When the hammer is cocked single action, it must be pulled back farther than the double action tripping point in order for the hammer to go to full cock. This means the spring will be compressed a bit more in single action mode.

 

In the old days, the hammer on many DA revolvers went a whole lot farther back in single action than in double action. The engineers at S&W reasoned that there was enough spring compression at the double action falling off point to fire a cartridge, and the extra pull back was unnecessary. So in the 1950s they redesigned the mechanism and came up with what is known as the 'short throw' action. Ever since then, the single action pull of the hammer is only slightly farther back than the double action tripping point on a S&W. But it is still a little bit farther back. I am not familiar enough with a Dan Wesson revolver to know how much farther back the single action cocking position is, but it has to be at least a little bit farther back.

 

It is a fairly common complaint that sometimes a DA revolver will not fire some primers double action but it will fire the same primers single action. Particularly if the hammer spring strain screw has been let out to lighten the hammer force. I am pretty sure the story is the same with DA/SA Semi-Automatic pistols for the same reason.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

 

It's easy to see that the hammer fall on my Dan Wesson is much shorter (and thus, lighter) in DA vs. SA. To cock the weapon in SA, well....it's a lot further back than where it trips for DA. Although I'm not a Dan Wesson expert, I've read that they came from the factory "specially tuned" to have a "smooth as butter" DA. I suspect that Dan Wesson set this "tripping point" further forward of where the full cock position is in order to achieve this "smooth as butter" DA. It does shoot very smoothly in DA. This, I've read, coupled with the unique replaceable barrel system, caused these particular guns to be very accurate and sought after. Mine was my Dad's and rides under the front seat of my pick-em-up truck, just like it did for him.

 

 

 

Also, thanks for the "lowdown" on primer hardness. I guess the term we should adopt would be FRGB.....force required to go bang..... I think we've all agreed that Federal has the lowest FRGB and CCI's are somewhere at or near the highest.

 

Thanks again,

 

Chick

[Bull Creek Cole]

For 209 shotgun primers I've foiund that the Fiochi 616's are really, really hard to set off. I thought I got lucky when I bought 3500 from an old reloader. I ended up trading 3000 of the Fiocchi's for 1000 Winchesters.

[John Boy]

I guess my question is their a difference in primer hardness?

Cornbread, the answer is Yes. Hang around the Wire long enough and this question keeps repeating. So, tired of reading 'is there a difference in primer hardness', off to the basement and here's the chart. Cornbread, put it in your computer for reference. The next time the question is asked, you can answer it instead of me. Driftwood, you too!

BTW, Federals are not the softest primers. Remingtons are. But CCI's are the hardest

 

22 Oct 2010

Test Procedure: Using a Lee Hardness Tester that measures Brinell hardness, placed a new primer on a piece of steel. Held the indent ball on the primer for 30 seconds. Measurement is the diameter of the indent, smaller numbers indication harder brass

Pistol Primers

0.32 – CCI 300 LP

0.38 – Federal GM150 Match LP

0.40 – Federal 155 LP Magnum

0.40 – Winchester WLP

0.42 – Federal 150 LP

0.42 - Federal 100 SP

0.44 – CCI 400 SP

0.48 – Remington 2 ½ LP

 

Rifle Primers

0.26 – CCI BR-2 LR

0.28 – CCI 200 LR

0.32 – Federal 215 LR Magnum

0.34 – Remington 9 ½ LR

Note: Rifle primers are harder than handgun primers!

Lot Numbers were not recorded

 

And if you are interested is a nearly complete chart of primer dimensions, read this

Primer Dimensions Note that Federals' have the highest and lowest brisance

 

Now, those folks not familiar with the internal ballistic term - brisance, take a read ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance

http://www.ordnance.org/brisance.htm

[Tom Bullweed]

I shot CCI's for years until a well-known gunsmith looked at my first-gen Colt's hammer and said 'CCI'. I enjoy original and modern guns.

I tried CCI, Winchesters, Remingtons, Federals and Magtech.

The Lee manual had restrictions and warnings about Federals. I found posts about primer explosions while seating soft primers. I ended up with Winchesters. They work well with my BP and smokeless loads. They are always the last off the shelf since so many shooters want the Federals. They are less expensive than Federals or Remingtons in my local shops.

I do not have my guns tuned to barely work with only a limited range of components. I hope to get better by doing a good job of doing the right things during and before a match. This will not put me in the top 10% of shooters, but it allows me to enjoy the game without being on the edge.

[Abe E.S. Corpus SASS #87667]

I finally used up my old stock of CCI primers. My Longhunter-tuned New Vaqueros never failed to set one off but I tried shooting them in an 1873 rifle that was modified "to the max" and it went click (times ten). The strain screw was bottomed out and I think it set off three out of ten.

 

I was to cheap to throw them away but now I'm stocked up with Federals.

 

In the late 80s it seems like Winchesters were the craze. I was shooting DA revolvers with aftermarket spring kits, mostly shooting double action. I never had a problem with Winchesters in my revolvers or in the .45 auto.

 

My only problem with Federal primers is the container is a large square and my primer trays are smaller round size. Easily fixed with new trays, I suppose.

[John Boy]

Easily fixed with new trays, I suppose.

Abe, Bill Lee thought ahead of you ... http://leeprecision.com/xcart/Hand-Priming-Tool/

Sinclair has them for $19 bucks

[Abe E.S. Corpus SASS #87667]

Abe, Bill Lee thought ahead of you ... http://leeprecision.com/xcart/Hand-Priming-Tool/

Sinclair has them for $19 bucks

 

Well, I thought it was an excuse to upgrade to a progressive press!

[Rio Brazos Kid]

There's no question that Federal primers have a softer face than most others, and in fact do indent easier than others.

 

For Pistols and Rifles that have lightened mainsprings, (Hammer Springs), just use Federal primers and you won't have any problems.

 

RBK

[Three Foot Johnson]

Supposedly, the metal for the primer cups all comes from the same facility, hence is all the same hardness and same thickness. "Brisance" was mentioned earlier, but that isn't quite the right term either, as Brisance is a measurement of the "shattering power" or detonation velocity of an explosive, as compared to TNT, which is assigned a Brisance value of 1.0. This is a property that is measured after ignition of an explosive, and doesn't have anything to do with how easy an explosion is to initiate. Manufacturers use two different compounds in their primers, and one requires a more rapid percussive force to ignite it; reduce the spring strength and you no longer have the higher velocity percussive/compressive force to set off a particular compound.

A firecracker in a stick of dynamite won't make it go bang because it doesn't have a high enough Brisance value (in this example, "Brisance" is the correct term because I'm referring to an explosive), but insert a high velocity cap with a higher Brisance value, and BANG. The force of the firecracker (let's call it the hammer) isn't "striking the primer" (let's call it the dynamite) hard enough to initiate the explosion, while the higher velocity blasting cap will, even though the consistency, or hardness, of the dynamite remains the same. Change the ratio of the explosive and the stabilizing compound in the stick of dynamite though, and it will eventually reach the point where the firecracker will detonate it (Federal primer!). In the same manner, if you reduce the velocity of your firearm's hammer, it will, at some point, no longer have the required percussive force to detonate the priming compound that CCI uses.

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

Howdy J Bar

 

Thanks for the explanation of Brisance that has pretty much been my understanding of it too.

 

Regarding dynamite and blasting caps; I have read that the blasting cap may have been Alfred Nobel's real claim to fame. Without inventing the blasting cap he might not have had a reliable way to set off his other invention, dynamite.

 

I have also read that Nobel would go on promotional tours to demonstrate how safe dynamite was. He would throw it into fires and throw it off cliffs without it detonating. I have even read that he used to shoot bullets into it without a detonation. I do not know what caliber, but if that is true it must mean that the bullets he was using did not deliver enough shock to set off the dynamite.

[Sergeant Smokepole #29248L]

Old CCI's were the toughest to pop and old Federals the easiest.

 

That said, now that Federal and CCI are owned by the same parent corporation, my tests have shown that CCI's are much softer than they were and Federals ane slightly harder than they were. In side by side comparisons, I'd rate both as equals in sensitivity at this time. My guess is that they are being made at the same facility and on the same machinery, just packaged differently.