Primer test

[mikecr]

I believe primer swapping is a lot like bullet seating testing in that any change from a developed condition takes you out of developed, affecting results in that regard as well. This masks what you're fishing for with the changes.
So you could re-develop after every change, seeking an actual truth. But this could take huge resources & time. You could do the testing before load development and well away from where your load will end up. This seems more logical to me.

From my perspective both primers swapping and full seating testing of bullets have been coarse changes, while powder and neck tension have been fine tuning. It's also possible to adjust any one of these either coarse or finely, but with any calibration we should begin at coarse and finish at finest.

So what I've been doing is primer swapping and full seating testing during fire forming of brass.
This with a chosen neck length of sizing and ~85% of max pressure load (per QL). I don't care about MV there, grouping is less than stellar, but that's ok. It's very easy to see bigger grouping open & close with the changes.
I can see which primer put bullets closer together, same with coarse seating adjustments.
With best there, I move to powder development, which should get me below 1/2moa and acceptable ES.
Then I go back & tweak seating for tightest group shaping.
Last is tension, which I adjust with length of partial neck sizing, maybe further reducing ES.

I mentioned earlier that striking can be adjusted to optimize a primer. It's a PITA. Only did it once so far. But, I gained 1/8moa that I never would have found otherwise. So the next time my primer choice is too hard, or too easy(like it's all I have), I'll just choose & test striking.

 

[Woofie]

Wow, I kinda wish I never posted the results.

Ok, for all those expert reloaders.

1. I only did this primer test because I read a article in Shooting times that kinda did the same thing for fun to see if my results were close to there results.

2. Yes the FPS is measured at the target via acoustic sound. So how accurate is it really. I have no way to tell. Each bullet no matter what it's BC value should not change the noise signature. Might have some slight effect of the FPS it is traveling. So I dont take the FPS as true (maybe yes or maybe no) I do know what my FPS is at the muzzle is as I do crono each load development and look for the node.

3. Sine at this time I don't need to change primers because I do have a supply of CCI400 that will last me through the year and into the next.

4. Yes there may be a time that I will need to change primers and if that time comes I will do my load development as I have many times in the past when changing powder, bullet manufacture, jump, barrel etc.

5. I had no intention as to try to tell the world which primer is good or bad only posted my results for reference based on my load (40.6, H4350, 105 Hornady match) when only 1 variable was changed.

Everyone has a way to get the performance out of there pet loads. I have mine and you have yours. My way might be backwards to yours but the end results may be the same. I am satisfied
with my shooting at both 600 and 1000 yds. If something goes awry and groups open up then I can look at the gun and not the load (as it has not changed). Most of the time it can be traced to bedding, barrel erosion or just time to clean it (usually around 300 rnds). I'm on my 3rd barrels on both guns. My gun is not a custom $5k gun, but one that I have put together and worked on my self.

My 6 and 7" groups at 1k (6mm and 6.5CM) didn't happen overnight. Been doing this for 3 years. I feel good after a 600 and 1K shoot as I think I can hang in with the light gun class.

Thank you experts for your understanding

I actually think you did a good job, thank you. What you see is the Nitnoid members setting forth like the battleship Bismark to show how clever they are. Welcome to the Internet. Which doesn't mean their comments are incorrect, but I'll bet a goodly sum that not one of them has offered to share the cost -- or components -- of any additional testing to assuage their concerns.
I just ran a test of CCI magnum versus #34 versus standard LR primers in 300WM with both an extruded and a ball powder. The results are counter-intuitive, so IMO, interesting. I'm going to just post them on my own website instead of here. Not worth the aggro.
Once again, thank you for posting your interesting test results. I, at least, appreciate them, having read them in context.

 

[mikecr]

It's a public forum, with potentials to learn from discussion.
For this, nobody is owed anything but respect.
Keep that in mind

 

[ARK]

I actually think you did a good job, thank you. What you see is the Nitnoid members setting forth like the battleship Bismark to show how clever they are. Welcome to the Internet. Which doesn't mean their comments are incorrect, but I'll bet a goodly sum that not one of them has offered to share the cost -- or components -- of any additional testing to assuage their concerns.
I just ran a test of CCI magnum versus #34 versus standard LR primers in 300WM with both an extruded and a ball powder. The results are counter-intuitive, so IMO, interesting. I'm going to just post them on my own website instead of here. Not worth the aggro.
Once again, thank you for posting your interesting test results. I, at least, appreciate them, having read them in context.

Can you share a link to your website? With the components shortages I find myself using what I can get vs what I like or worked my loads with.

 

[Woofie]

Can you share a link to your website? With the components shortages I find myself using what I can get vs what I like or worked my loads with.

I will send you a PM w/a link.