WLR bad lot number

[SteveUrban]

I had the same issue with Rem SR back in the 90's. They replaced all the primers and the 2 AR bolts I had. The problem was that the inside of the cup was scored causing a weak spot .

 

[searcher]

Not to say those weren't "bad" primers - but all lots of all primer brands fail at a certain point. And not all lots are the same as to what pressure they fail at - be it due to micro differences in cup thickness, metallurgy of the steel in the cups, primer mix, etc., etc.

I've seen plenty of bolt faces that are far worse than those in the posted pictures, having shot a wide array of different primers - and all meeting the same fate of primer leakage when pushed too hard. The face on my .243 Winchester bolt is testament to what happens when a load is pushed too far. Same for my high-round-count A/R bolts (which ironically all use heavy-cup primers AND are considered "mild" loads by any book. Just because a load is "under max" per a load manual DOESN'T mean it isn't max for one's rifle. Let's say one uses a primer on a load, then changed to a different brand or lot of primer and has a problem. It does not necessarily mean there was any problem with the primer. It just wasn't as strong as the other particular primer with that load. Does that mean the primer manufacturer should be responsible for replacing bolts and blown-up rifles when primer or powder substitutions are made and the loads are not again worked up to carefully? And when one finally blows a primer due to what is found to be the max pressure for the rifle and load, that is telling you that you have gone too far with it. Does that mean the primer or powder company should pay you to learn what your rifle's capabilities are with their product by replacing bolts and blown up rifles?

And that opens a pandora's box. Powder manufacturers do not guarantee pressure in your chamber, the velocity you will get, nor do primer manufacturers have a guarantee they will handle your given load. It is when we think they "should" that things get hazy. A lot of us buy certain primers because they are known to handle pressure pretty well. Winchester primers are not known for that. It doesn't mean they are bad primers. If run the way Winchester intended them to be run - you would likely have encountered no problems. You are running a fairly heavy bullet with a load that shows to be stiff for your rifle. The primer was the first ling that showed you this. If you had a case separation - would it have been "a brass problem"?

At some point in working up a load, if one wants to see what velocities they can safely get as a maximum, it means running them into higher than prudent territory to see where the load begins to fail. And primer leakage can be a pretty common problem when doing so. I knowingly do it regularly - and accept the toll my equipment takes in doing so - as well as the potential harm to myself that I take on each time I do so.
I've also encountered primer leakage when shooting very low powered loads.

I posted this, as I think that ANYONE reloading ammo needs to accept the responsibility and the risks they take on when reloading ammo. If we expect the manufacturers to pay for our lack of knowledge or mistakes - that drives the cost up for all of us and promotes legal issues which should not otherwise exist. If we hold them to one lot of primers to being as good as the last (or they have to pay equipment repairs), we are pushing way too hard here.

I'm not ragging on the poster of this thread here - just that I think he has gotten a bit of tainted advice. I will say this. In my expensive target rifles, I will not shoot ANY primer not proven to consistently hold pressure higher than other competing brands. Even then, with each new lot - there is a bit of a gamble. While I love Winchester primers for many purposes, I'd never allow one to be fired in my expensive rifles with the pressures I run. (I'm tainted too).

 

[cosmic creepers]

Personally, if it does not effect your brass and you have no extraction issues I would just shoot it. Annoying as it is, if it functions fine just carry on. You can always get another bolt fitted at the factory if it drives you crazy. Just sucks that it happened through no fault of your own.
Paul

I try to get on board with this to not be mad or sad, but my model 70 they don't just make bolts for that rifle anymore. And I just keep thinking that any erosion to my bolt face has to contribute to deficiencies in precision.

 

[cosmic creepers]

Not to say those weren't "bad" primers - but all lots of all primer brands fail at a certain point. And not all lots are the same as to what pressure they fail at - be it due to micro differences in cup thickness, metallurgy of the steel in the cups, primer mix, etc., etc.

I've seen plenty of bolt faces that are far worse than those in the posted pictures, having shot a wide array of different primers - and all meeting the same fate of primer leakage when pushed too hard. The face on my .243 Winchester bolt is testament to what happens when a load is pushed too far. Same for my high-round-count A/R bolts (which ironically all use heavy-cup primers AND are considered "mild" loads by any book. Just because a load is "under max" per a load manual DOESN'T mean it isn't max for one's rifle. Let's say one uses a primer on a load, then changed to a different brand or lot of primer and has a problem. It does not necessarily mean there was any problem with the primer. It just wasn't as strong as the other particular primer with that load. Does that mean the primer manufacturer should be responsible for replacing bolts and blown-up rifles when primer or powder substitutions are made and the loads are not again worked up to carefully? And when one finally blows a primer due to what is found to be the max pressure for the rifle and load, that is telling you that you have gone too far with it. Does that mean the primer or powder company should pay you to learn what your rifle's capabilities are with their product by replacing bolts and blown up rifles?

And that opens a pandora's box. Powder manufacturers do not guarantee pressure in your chamber, the velocity you will get, nor do primer manufacturers have a guarantee they will handle your given load. It is when we think they "should" that things get hazy. A lot of us buy certain primers because they are known to handle pressure pretty well. Winchester primers are not known for that. It doesn't mean they are bad primers. If run the way Winchester intended them to be run - you would likely have encountered no problems. You are running a fairly heavy bullet with a load that shows to be stiff for your rifle. The primer was the first ling that showed you this. If you had a case separation - would it have been "a brass problem"?

At some point in working up a load, if one wants to see what velocities they can safely get as a maximum, it means running them into higher than prudent territory to see where the load begins to fail. And primer leakage can be a pretty common problem when doing so. I knowingly do it regularly - and accept the toll my equipment takes in doing so - as well as the potential harm to myself that I take on each time I do so.
I've also encountered primer leakage when shooting very low powered loads.

I posted this, as I think that ANYONE reloading ammo needs to accept the responsibility and the risks they take on when reloading ammo. If we expect the manufacturers to pay for our lack of knowledge or mistakes - that drives the cost up for all of us and promotes legal issues which should not otherwise exist. If we hold them to one lot of primers to being as good as the last (or they have to pay equipment repairs), we are pushing way too hard here.

I'm not ragging on the poster of this thread here - just that I think he has gotten a bit of tainted advice. I will say this. In my expensive target rifles, I will not shoot ANY primer not proven to consistently hold pressure higher than other competing brands. Even then, with each new lot - there is a bit of a gamble. While I love Winchester primers for many purposes, I'd never allow one to be fired in my expensive rifles with the pressures I run. (I'm tainted too).

I also try to get on board with this, but we will have to think each other are wrong. My primers are round. I worked up this load. My velocity is reasonable. My rifle is functional. The primers fail often afmt these pressures which are not pushing the envelope. They are failing destructively at a unreasonably low pressure.

Responsibility is one thing. Failure to produce a functional component is another. Which they've done. Which I've seen quite a handful of other issues from very close lot numbers, and the winchester rep stated had another previously reported problem from the same exact lot number.

I'm not blaming the powder. It performed as intended. The powder literally produced textbook velocity for the charge and cartridge. The primer failed. A lot.

 

[Cfshooter]

I also try to get on board with this, but we will have to think each other are wrong. My primers are round. I worked up this load. My velocity is reasonable. My rifle is functional. The primers fail often afmt these pressures which are not pushing the envelope. They are failing destructively at a unreasonably low pressure.

Responsibility is one thing. Failure to produce a functional component is another. Which they've done. Which I've seen quite a handful of other issues from very close lot numbers, and the winchester rep stated had another previously reported problem from the same exact lot number.

I'm not blaming the powder. It performed as intended. The powder literally produced textbook velocity for the charge and cartridge. The primer failed. A lot.

It’s your brass (at least that’s what they told me).

 

[kyotekiller25]

Not to say those weren't "bad" primers - but all lots of all primer brands fail at a certain point. And not all lots are the same as to what pressure they fail at - be it due to micro differences in cup thickness, metallurgy of the steel in the cups, primer mix, etc., etc.

I've seen plenty of bolt faces that are far worse than those in the posted pictures, having shot a wide array of different primers - and all meeting the same fate of primer leakage when pushed too hard. The face on my .243 Winchester bolt is testament to what happens when a load is pushed too far. Same for my high-round-count A/R bolts (which ironically all use heavy-cup primers AND are considered "mild" loads by any book. Just because a load is "under max" per a load manual DOESN'T mean it isn't max for one's rifle. Let's say one uses a primer on a load, then changed to a different brand or lot of primer and has a problem. It does not necessarily mean there was any problem with the primer. It just wasn't as strong as the other particular primer with that load. Does that mean the primer manufacturer should be responsible for replacing bolts and blown-up rifles when primer or powder substitutions are made and the loads are not again worked up to carefully? And when one finally blows a primer due to what is found to be the max pressure for the rifle and load, that is telling you that you have gone too far with it. Does that mean the primer or powder company should pay you to learn what your rifle's capabilities are with their product by replacing bolts and blown up rifles?

And that opens a pandora's box. Powder manufacturers do not guarantee pressure in your chamber, the velocity you will get, nor do primer manufacturers have a guarantee they will handle your given load. It is when we think they "should" that things get hazy. A lot of us buy certain primers because they are known to handle pressure pretty well. Winchester primers are not known for that. It doesn't mean they are bad primers. If run the way Winchester intended them to be run - you would likely have encountered no problems. You are running a fairly heavy bullet with a load that shows to be stiff for your rifle. The primer was the first ling that showed you this. If you had a case separation - would it have been "a brass problem"?

At some point in working up a load, if one wants to see what velocities they can safely get as a maximum, it means running them into higher than prudent territory to see where the load begins to fail. And primer leakage can be a pretty common problem when doing so. I knowingly do it regularly - and accept the toll my equipment takes in doing so - as well as the potential harm to myself that I take on each time I do so.
I've also encountered primer leakage when shooting very low powered loads.

I posted this, as I think that ANYONE reloading ammo needs to accept the responsibility and the risks they take on when reloading ammo. If we expect the manufacturers to pay for our lack of knowledge or mistakes - that drives the cost up for all of us and promotes legal issues which should not otherwise exist. If we hold them to one lot of primers to being as good as the last (or they have to pay equipment repairs), we are pushing way too hard here.

I'm not ragging on the poster of this thread here - just that I think he has gotten a bit of tainted advice. I will say this. In my expensive target rifles, I will not shoot ANY primer not proven to consistently hold pressure higher than other competing brands. Even then, with each new lot - there is a bit of a gamble. While I love Winchester primers for many purposes, I'd never allow one to be fired in my expensive rifles with the pressures I run. (I'm tainted too).

Will definitely have to agree to disagree here on that. A bad primer is a bad primer, simple as that. It's no one's fault but the manufacturer at that point, and they need to take full responsibility in my opinion.

I'm still waiting back to hear from them and testing my primers. I will not be surprised one bit when they come back with some BS answer claiming there's nothing wrong with the primers, and instead it's either my loading practices or brass, which happens to be Peterson in this case. Both of which is total hog wash. So you're telling me all these cases of experienced handloaders are having the same issue, with Winchester primers, but it's not the primer? OoooooK

 

[searcher]

Will definitely have to agree to disagree here on that. A bad primer is a bad primer, simple as that. It's no one's fault but the manufacturer at that point, and they need to take full responsibility in my opinion.

I'm still waiting back to hear from them and testing my primers. I will not be surprised one bit when they come back with some BS answer claiming there's nothing wrong with the primers, and instead it's either my loading practices or brass, which happens to be Peterson in this case. Both of which is total hog wash. So you're telling me all these cases of experienced handloaders are having the same issue, with Winchester primers, but it's not the primer? OoooooK

Read my first sentence again.
There are bad lots of primers that make it out occasionally - but not nearly as often as is the fault of the reloader. And that is not to say you were at fault. I'm sure you started your ladder low and worked up till you found there was a problem. If you think all primers are exactly the same and can handle the same pressure - 00000k

 

[searcher]

I also try to get on board with this, but we will have to think each other are wrong. My primers are round. I worked up this load. My velocity is reasonable. My rifle is functional. The primers fail often afmt these pressures which are not pushing the envelope. They are failing destructively at a unreasonably low pressure.

Responsibility is one thing. Failure to produce a functional component is another. Which they've done. Which I've seen quite a handful of other issues from very close lot numbers, and the winchester rep stated had another previously reported problem from the same exact lot number.

I'm not blaming the powder. It performed as intended. The powder literally produced textbook velocity for the charge and cartridge. The primer failed. A lot.

My point in posting that is because manufacturers make their primers primarily to load their own ammunition. They don't manufacture their primers to meet the exact same tolerances of the prior batch - or the next batch. There are "acceptable parameters" of manufacturing tolerances. Just like powders, barrels, chambers, etc. So while one batch bay be able to be run hot in one's rifle, the next batch might not. While you say your pressures are not pushing the envelope - how accurately do you know this? Without the sophisticated testing equipment the manufacturers have - we only know when something shows a sign - be it a blown primer, bulged base in a case, etc. Regardless, that the primer batch that is a "problem" didn't hold quite the pressure that the last batch did does not necessarily mean there is a problem with the batch as far as the manufacturer sees it. It is the responsibility of a reloader to work up, each time one substitutes primers, powder, etc.. I'm guessing that, if most of the guys that have problems with primers did that, they wouldn't have jacked up bolt faces, blown up rigs, etc.. I think that if the primer does have a real problem that made it to be out of "spec", the manufacturer should make it right with you. If they say the primers are "O.K.", it doesn't necessarily mean they are jacking you around. It might just be that they were "in spec". I also posted that because a lot of "novice" reloaders might think it O.K. to demand equipment repair reimbursements when things don't go as planned, through no fault of the manufacturer. It is unpleasant to have damaged bolt faces, but primer leaks from excessive pressure (whether at your standards or not) can be easily mitigated most often by careful load work up. But again - that is not to say those aren't bad primers - as I said in the first sentence of my post.

 

[cosmic creepers]

My point in posting that is because manufacturers make their primers primarily to load their own ammunition. They don't manufacture their primers to meet the exact same tolerances of the prior batch - or the next batch. There are "acceptable parameters" of manufacturing tolerances. Just like powders, barrels, chambers, etc. So while one batch bay be able to be run hot in one's rifle, the next batch might not. While you say your pressures are not pushing the envelope - how accurately do you know this? Without the sophisticated testing equipment the manufacturers have - we only know when something shows a sign - be it a blown primer, bulged base in a case, etc. Regardless, that the primer batch that is a "problem" didn't hold quite the pressure that the last batch did does not necessarily mean there is a problem with the batch as far as the manufacturer sees it. It is the responsibility of a reloader to work up, each time one substitutes primers, powder, etc.. I'm guessing that, if most of the guys that have problems with primers did that, they wouldn't have jacked up bolt faces, blown up rigs, etc.. I think that if the primer does have a real problem that made it to be out of "spec", the manufacturer should make it right with you. If they say the primers are "O.K.", it doesn't necessarily mean they are jacking you around. It might just be that they were "in spec". I also posted that because a lot of "novice" reloaders might think it O.K. to demand equipment repair reimbursements when things don't go as planned, through no fault of the manufacturer. It is unpleasant to have damaged bolt faces, but primer leaks from excessive pressure (whether at your standards or not) can be easily mitigated most often by careful load work up. But again - that is not to say those aren't bad primers - as I said in the first sentence of my post.

I agree with that statement much more on all facets. The reason I say I know my pressures are low is because of the load itself. Velocity is 150 fps from published maximum, load is 2 grains from published maximum. Brass is 3% more voluminous than factory chamber, chamber has 5% longer throat than saami .308 chamber. Bullets are seated .050" longer than published data, and still are .045" from the lands in my m118 chamber.

You can take that info and do with it what you will, but it will be a little telling which of us can understand pressure and which cannot.

Apologies for the late reply, working many miles from home and camping in the woods during work weeks, I've been missing SF notifications

Phil

 

[searcher]

I agree with that statement much more on all facets. The reason I say I know my pressures are low is because of the load itself. Velocity is 150 fps from published maximum, load is 2 grains from published maximum. Brass is 3% more voluminous than factory chamber, chamber has 5% longer throat than saami .308 chamber. Bullets are seated .050" longer than published data, and still are .045" from the lands in my m118 chamber.

You can take that info and do with it what you will, but it will be a little telling which of us can understand pressure and which cannot.

Apologies for the late reply, working many miles from home and camping in the woods during work weeks, I've been missing SF notifications

Phil

Not trying to be contrary to your wisdom - but published maximum pressures relates to the test chamber they tested the load with - not all barrels subjected to their loads. I have worked up a lot of loads well below "safe" published pressures, yet my barrel said otherwise - for that particular barrel. Some manuals tend to list some loads which can often be found to be excessive in certain barrels - and some list pretty tame loads, comparatively. The barrel has the ultimate say - regardless of published data. If all published loads were deemed safe, there would be no need to heed the safety exercise of working up. Sizing of brass, throating, seating depth, etc. won't change the diameter of your barrel. Good luck with getting that dialed in.

 

[kyotekiller25]

I received 2 new bricks of WLR primers from Winchester about a week ago, as the ones I sent them had some type of issue with the cup. So looks like I was right after all. Hope these new ones are good to go. Little scared to use them ha.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Only primer I have had do this is a win. Stopped using them almost 10 years ago for this reason.

 

[Fclassfool]

Only primer I have had do this is a win. Stopped using them almost 10 years ago for this reason.

Yep this is a known issue with them not real sure why folks are trying to say otherwise tho...