CCI 450 primers

[shoot4fun]

I was using Federal Gold Medal in my 223 bolt gun with 80 VLD and Varget. The load is stiff and GM primers were very flat even with the bushed firing pin on my bolt. I tested CCI 450 and 400 with same load on the same day. I much higher SD with 450 than with 400 primers. The SD was actually lower than with GM primers so I stuck with the 400.
Just saying why not try the 450 & 400 to see which performs best for your load/rifle?

 

[searcher]

I can see why some readers thought I was saying 450's are not appropriate for an A/R as they thought I was referring to the thickness of the cups on the 450. Not what I said. I said there are better choices. And - there are others that have appropriately thick cups that tend to work better with most loads tried. That said, there are some "Magnum" primers, such as the Tula Magnum that can produce lower velocities with an otherwise exact load than the non-magnum - as it depends on the fill density and the type of powder being used. The 450's have produced higher sd's in almost every load I and my friends who share chrono's load data with using bullets lighter than 62 grains - and the powders found to work best with those bullets. Maybe an aberration - but that was with thousands rounds over a lot of loads in numerous guns. In the end, though - that was OUR experience. When those same primers were used with bullets 62 grains and over, and the powders which were best suited to the heavier bullets, this phenomenon reversed. And I think that seems about right - as the 450's are considered magnum primers to suit the slower powders. While the 450's can be shot out of an A/R SAFELY, they are usually not the best pick - it had nothing to do with the cup.

 

[MS50]

I shoot 80gr SMKs in my SAAMI chamber 1:7.5 26in barrel. Using 23gr of H4895, CCI 400 primers, I get half MOA groups at 100 yards at 2785fps. I wondered if I could do better and last week tried the CCI 450s. I started at 22.5gr H4895 and worked up to 23gr. On a 35 deg day, the group sizes doubled, ES was very large, and there was difficult extraction starting at 22.5gr. The guy at the gun shop told me they wouldn't work with the stick powder. I had to see it for myself.

 

[grovey]

Two more ftf's in as many range sessions. I'm done with them.

 

[CT10ring]

I shoot 80gr SMKs in my SAAMI chamber 1:7.5 26in barrel. Using 23gr of H4895, CCI 400 primers, I get half MOA groups at 100 yards at 2785fps. I wondered if I could do better and last week tried the CCI 450s. I started at 22.5gr H4895 and worked up to 23gr. On a 35 deg day, the group sizes doubled, ES was very large, and there was difficult extraction starting at 22.5gr. The guy at the gun shop told me they wouldn't work with the stick powder. I had to see it for myself.

good info+ helpful, even tho not a good primer for your needs. thx...

 

[Jeff A]

Two more ftf's in as many range sessions. I'm done with them.

Sorry grovey! In as much as I now use 450's in every rifle I own but one and I never have a problem, I think youn should take a look at your equipment or your Primer seating depth.

 

[Beau]

Two more ftf's in as many range sessions. I'm done with them.

You need to contact CCI.

 

[ronsatspokane]

I had another ftf yesterday. I tried it twice, then put it aside and shot the remaining 3 groups I had loaded. It finally fired upon the third try. The brass was not grossly undersized this time as with the last three. My load is 0.012 off the lands at the moment.

Interesting. I think there was a bad batch produced. Praveen and I split a box of 1000 to test in 223's pushing 90 grain Bergers. We are using different powders. I started getting FTF's toward the end of last season. One match I had 6 or 8 in 4 strings. Had others in other matches. Last weekend Praveen was using them in his 6 Dasher. I think he had 3 or 4 of them fail to fire. He went out and test his 223 using the same primers. Had 11 out of 100 fail. Seems CCI made a bunch of placebo primers.

 

[Damon555]

I use CCI450's in every cartridge that I load that use that size.....never had a single problem.

 

[Rich S]

I use CCI 450's in a 6X47 Lapua (small rifle primer) - because the load data I referenced had these primers as part of the "recipe". I always "assumed" they would be too hot for a small cartridge. Could someone explain the difference of
BR-4's (which I use) and 450's? No safety pressure issues? thanks...

Below are comments I recently recieved from CCI:

Actually BR4s contain the same amount of priming mix as a CCI 400 so they are not a magnum primer. BR4s do have a thicker cup and are more consistent than the 400s which makes them our benchrest primer. CCI 450s have a magnum priming mix and a thicker cup like the BR4s but with a magnum priming mix rather than a standard.

 

[CT10ring]

Thanx, shooting them tomorrow in a new .223 bolt & 2 .223 ARs. Loaded them down a wee bit for the CCI 450 "magnum mix" I don't use a chrono so groups, bolt lift stick or not + primer flatness etc. are my references.

 

[ronsatspokane]

Thanx, shooting them tomorrow in a new .223 bolt & 2 .223 ARs. Loaded them down a wee bit for the CCI 450 "magnum mix" I don't use a chrono so groups, bolt lift stick or not + primer flatness etc. are my references.

I hadn't had any issues with them up until this batch that we split. If they fixed the problem then they should be fine.

 

[Laurie]

Below are comments I recently recieved from CCI:

Actually BR4s contain the same amount of priming mix as a CCI 400 so they are not a magnum primer. BR4s do have a thicker cup and are more consistent than the 400s which makes them our benchrest primer. CCI 450s have a magnum priming mix and a thicker cup like the BR4s but with a magnum priming mix rather than a standard.

Interesting! ........... and yet, I've had BR4 and 450 lots where in 223 Rem, the BR4s were considerably 'hotter' (in terms increased MVs, and unfortunately ES/SD values too). The more I look at primers and cartridge ignition, the less I think I understand anything, other than what works for me in a particular application.

I've heard a few complaints of FTF from UK competitors with recent CCI purchases. It seems there may be a few rogue lots in circulation.

 

[dfry]

I should add to my previous post that on the basis of the 308 Win tests, I adopted the Magtech 7 1/2 in a new Lawton 6mm BR BR 'Light Gun' build from day one. Results with a very mild 107gn Sierra MK and Viht N150 load have been superbly consistent and I'm very happy with this primer's performance.

(The CCI-450 is a known performer in 6BR and moreover recognised as being very 'tough' with hot loads. As my load combination is very mild - 2,700 fps from a 30-inch barrel - I can't comment on how well it would cope if and when pressures are 'pushed'.)

Laurie I know this is an old post, but wanted to run this by you. I have had problems with Magtech 7 1/2s piercing in both 308 with Palma brass and a 6BRX. Any thoughts? Only thing I can think of is unbushed firing pin hole,

Thanks, Dave

 

[Laurie]

Only thing I can think of is unbushed firing pin hole,

Yes, that's the usual / most likely cause.

IME, the Magtech 7 1/2 cup isn't as 'tough' as some makes, but it ought to be the same as the company uses in its full-pressure M855 spec 5.56 factory ammo. I didn't have any issues with it in the 308 Win SP tests with the Stolle Atlas bolt.

 

[dfry]

Yes, that's the usual / most likely cause.

IME, the Magtech 7 1/2 cup isn't as 'tough' as some makes, but it ought to be the same as the company uses in its full-pressure M855 spec 5.56 factory ammo. I didn't have any issues with it in the 308 Win SP tests with the Stolle Atlas bolt.

Ok, thanks Laurie, kind of what I thought! Dave

 

[searcher]

I did a side by side test of 15 SR primers a few years ago in 308 Win 'Palma' brass. Not quite the same as trying them in 223 Rem size cartridges, but it still gives a good indication as to which are 'mild' or 'hot' using average MVs as the yardstick.

With only 18 fps average MV variation across the lot, around half that of when LR primers were tested previously, and with 'magnums' or 'magnum / match' type MVs evenly spread across the results, there is apparently little or no difference in brisance levels between the types. I have long believed that the difference is in cup strength / thickness, some standard models having been originally developed to suit the low pressure .22 Hornet and its early rifles, many of which were converted rimfires, the very original application of the type.

The CCI-BR4 primer lot used in these tests was a known 'hot' batch bought maybe 10 years ago and although I've had excellent results from it in 308 Win Palma, it didn't do nearly as well in 223 where milder models gave better performance (groups and ES). IME, and I'll admit opinion, there is more difference between individual production lots of the CCI-450 and BR4 models than there is between the two products, the individual application and powder make / grade used also affecting their relative results. Frankly I wouldn't expect to see much if any performance difference between the pair if manufactured and bought at the same time. Whether the BR4 is worth the extra money as a claimed higher QC product and better performer in batch sample tests ..........?

http://www.targetshooter.co.uk/?p=2662

In any event, if you look at the results, you'll see a mere 7 fps difference between the 450 and BR4 on an average MV of 2,815 fps, which is hardly shattering! (Interestingly too, there is also 7 fps difference between the F205 and its 205M 'match' variant despite most people believing they are different 'quality' grades of an identical product.)

My primer testing resulted in similar experiences. Testing many small rifle primers in .223's with the same bullet and load, brass, O.A.L., etc. resulted in very small FPS differences between all of the primers (about 8). Interestingly, the Russian batches I tested (Wolff and Tula - both manufactured at the Murom Apparatus plant) registered velocities of about 20 f.p.s lower using magnum primers than their standard small rifle primer.

 

[searcher]

I am wondering why/how the CCI 450 would be a great primer for high pressure cartridges but not for an AR.

It seems to have a cup as thick as any other small rifle primer.

Yes - pressure is not a problem with the 450's at all. And - as noted - many primers have cups the same thickness. The difference that makes some primers better choices is that the cups are much harder and resist detonation better when the floating firing pin smacks the face of the primer when the bolt slams home -but trigger not yet pulled. It is not to say the 450 will do that often (if ever) - but some primers are designed to prevent that from happening. Federal came out with their A/R Match primer - yet their small rifle match primers hold pressure just fine. Same with the Russian primers - which have the same thickness of cups as others - yet they are VERY hard cups - often leading people who have a bit of excessive headspace or weak hammer spring into thinking they are poor primers that don't always go bang. Nothing wrong with those 450's as to pressure at all! I luv 'em!

 

[CJ6]

I use the 450's in many loads in the 223. The latest is with CFE 223. Very accurate.

 

[jelenko]

I've gone through ~ 20K of 450's in an AR with no slam fires. And, they have all gone bang when the trigger was pulled.