Ruger Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,755 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
here is some info:

http://www.btgresearch.org/High-speed%20measurement%20of%20rifle%20primer%20blast%20waves.pdf

Among the primers discussed I use CCI 200, 250's, and 450's.

Of note there is a big difference in peak pressure, like 40 percent between CCI 200's and 250's. There appears to be about the same difference between CCI 200's and 450's.

Fig. 2 shows detonation times (blast pressure wave forms) and the similar and rapid rate of pressure decrease for all primers.

Blast pressures are also shown as a function of explosive and total primer mass and as expected blast pressures increase is a generally linear way. Blast velocities are in the order of 15,000 (15 thousand) fps, this is why explosives blow clothing off your body.

Table 2 shows a good correlation of blast pressure with total primer mass except for the commonly used CCI 450 primer used in high accuracy rounds like the 6.5X47 Lapua. Possibly the test guys got a bad lot.

As expected magnum primers have more explosive content and generate more heat and blast pressure to ignite larger powder charges and powders having larger grains size and deterrent coatings. I would expect the CCI 34 primers to be similar to the CCI 250 and 450's to be similar to 41's.

Smokeless gun powders are in the order of 85% or more composed of nitrocellulose and use shape and various deterrent coatings to retard burn rate. Smokeless powders used in rifles and to some degree slow burning handgun powders are regarded as "progressive burning" - more pressure faster burning - time vs pressure. No confinement - no pressure - just another brisk fire.

Don't think it would be wise to use small pistol magnum primers in 9mm Luger rounds - high pressure, small capacity.

Of note are the primer flash photos from 6mm BR: Primer Flash Test Photos

There appears to be some correlation between the blast wave pressure stuff and the flash pic of the Fed 205M primer. It was noted that the 205M primer was of 1980's vintage - real old.

Of note is the disproportionally big flash from the tiny Remington 7 1/2 small rifle primer. Too bad the blast wave guys failed to measure that primer. I don't see why it would not rate high in the blast pressure/heat category. In my anecdotal playing around with my 6.5X47 Lapua I see no differences between that primer and the CCI 450 but I have no sophisticated transducers and such.

Upon closing, lead is not good for your body and tends to stay inside your bones and such. When loading ammo I wear nitrile gloves. Don't know for a fact but I hear the guys at the Army Marksmanship Unit (AMU) wear gloves - possibly the OHSA would go after them if they did not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
420 Posts
I don't wear gloves when I shoot or reload. What I do to eliminate lead contamination is a wipe that removes lead. Then I wash my hands and never eat or drink while I'm doing either.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,755 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
I guess I am sort of a paranoid when it comes to bad stuff. I intend to stop far short of what Howard Hughes was portrayed as being like in the movie The Aviator.

Those filthy, ugly spent primers are of concern.

Of note in the attached article was that the blast waves did differ from standard to magnum and the blast duration was essentially the same and the shape of the pressure curve after the blast peak was very similar from primer to primer, standard and magnum. fig. 2
I don't intend to quit using CCI 450's because they work just great in my 6.5X47 Lapua.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,755 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Any body out there who has used Sellier & Bellot primers - I think these primers are Russian; I would have confidence in them for use in plinking rounds for handguns but for picky long range rifle shooting I would need more info. I guess I will have to just try them out.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top