For those who sort primers....

[FDCaptain]

I don't do competitions; I reload strictly for hunting. I have shot at 1k at our range just for kicks,
I guess if you're shooting for money that make sense.

 

[Straightshooter1]

Would some please explain to this old man why one sorts and weighs primers?

I do it mainly to reduce velocity ES's . . . helps remove some of those flyers you just can't figure out why.

 

[Straightshooter1]

Your assuming the cup/anvil weights are consistent, and the priming compound is inconsistent that's a stretch.

Those other variables are why I did testing to see what difference there might be, if any. Other's have run tests showing that the outliers produce a discernable difference. Running the tests myself convinced me that there's enough difference to warrant the effort in sorting. . . for me.

Also, you're assuming that your equipment is spot on and not being affected by voltage fluctuations in house current which can be + - 10v or more. Not sure what shooting sport that 26fps would have a noticeable impact. lotech summed it up, busy work. Nice talk, thanks.

If going from consistent SD's of around 9 to consistent SD's of around 5 isn't important to your shooting discipline, then sure. . . don't bother sorting primers. And I think this is so for the vast majority of shooters.


This old man to another!

 

[Kevin1990]

So forgive my stupidity, and I'm not trying to highjack the thread, but can you sort 100 at a time and just put them into lots, or would it be better to sort all 1000/5000 at the same time?

Also, if you only have a scale like RCBS link or the like, is this even possible? I just weighed 50, 205m and got 3.6-3.7gr.

To answer the question though I'd store them back in the trays they came in. I feel like bags or certain pill boxes could trap moisture, but I may be wrong.

 

[drop_point]

So forgive my stupidity, and I'm not trying to highjack the thread, but can you sort 100 at a time and just put them into lots, or would it be better to sort all 1000/5000 at the same time?

Also, if you only have a scale like RCBS link or the like, is this even possible? I just weighed 50, 205m and got 3.6-3.7gr.

To answer the question though I'd store them back in the trays they came in. I feel like bags or certain pill boxes could trap moisture, but I may be wrong.

I do 1000 at at time typically so that there is enough of a lot to be useful in a match.

 

[Straightshooter1]

So forgive my stupidity, and I'm not trying to highjack the thread, but can you sort 100 at a time and just put them into lots, or would it be better to sort all 1000/5000 at the same time?

I think one could probably doo 100 at a time, but would need to record the results each time in order to identify any outlier that pops up. The main issue I'd have with just 100 at a time is not having enough within a small weight range to get 50 or 100 rounds loaded. So I think doing 1000 or more is the better approach.

Also, if you only have a scale like RCBS link or the like, is this even possible? I just weighed 50, 205m and got 3.6-3.7gr.

Though the resolution for that RCBS Link isn't be best for sorting primers, I think it can still be somewhat helpful in finding those few outliers in a batch . . . even if you're only weighing 100 at a time (as long you keep track of the weights so you can identify an outlier when you see it). And I think it would still help to keep those those weighing 3.6 an 3.7 apart. In other sleaves of primers of the same lot, I think you're likely to find a few that are outside of that weight range.

To answer the question though I'd store them back in the trays they came in. I feel like bags or certain pill boxes could trap moisture, but I may be wrong.

Good point about trapping moisture. I'm sure that could be an issue where temperature and humidity can vary widely.

 

[Kevin1990]

I think one could probably doo 100 at a time, but would need to record the results each time in order to identify any outlier that pops up. The main issue I'd have with just 100 at a time is not having enough within a small weight range to get 50 or 100 rounds loaded. So I think doing 1000 or more is the better approach.

Though the resolution for that RCBS Link isn't be best for sorting primers, I think it can still be somewhat helpful in finding those few outliers in a batch . . . even if you're only weighing 100 at a time (as long you keep track of the weights so you can identify an outlier when you see it). And I think it would still help to keep those those weighing 3.6 an 3.7 apart. In other sleaves of primers of the same lot, I think you're likely to find a few that are outside of that weight range.
View attachment 1699978


Good point about trapping moisture. I'm sure that could be an issue where temperature and humidity can vary widely.

Thanks for the advice! I'm gonna get the chrono out this weekend and do some testing.

 

[drop_point]

Thanks for the advice! I'm gonna get the chrono out this weekend and do some testing.

When I started sorting them, I was quite skeptical. I didn't want it to work at all because it is kind of a pain and uses time I'd rather spend doing something else. Ultimately I did catch some outliers. My SD/ES did go down. I did start shooting better. Is it because of the ammo? Or is it that I'm just getting better? I'm about a year and a half into shooting F-Class.

 

[lotech]

If you want to see the impact that 26fps has on a projectile, run a ballistic calculator with any cartridge and data set of your choice. Make note of bullet drop at various distances out to 1000 yds. Then run the exact same calculation again with the only change being an increase or decrease in velocity of 26fps and make note of bullet drop at the same distances out to 1000 yds. When comparing your notes, the impact of 26fps becomes very obvious at distance. Go ahead, don't sort primers, I'm always happy to compete with shooters who leave this element of consistency on the table

I'm not a competitor and I'm not criticizing, though curious. Ballistic calculations considered; have you tested this sufficiently on target at 1,000 yards to comment on 26 fps differences? I was thinking ballistic calculations and actual performance on paper may not jive. If you've proven they do, I certainly have no basis for argument.

 

[BKA]

In the real world, ballistic calculators are only as good as YOUR input...garbage in = garbage out.
On a paper target, you don't need to go to 1000 yds to see a difference 26fps makes, you can see it at as little as 100yds. For the short range benchrest crowd looking for ultimate precision and accuracy when shooting tiny groups, whether the 26fps comes from powder charge or primer, it can be the difference of a gun being "in tune" and not being "in tune".

 

[6MMsteve]

I use diabetic test strip containers, they have built in moisture absorption and seal tight

 

[lotech]

In the real world, ballistic calculators are only as good as YOUR input...garbage in = garbage out.
On a paper target, you don't need to go to 1000 yds to see a difference 26fps makes, you can see it at as little as 100yds. For the short range benchrest crowd looking for ultimate precision and accuracy when shooting tiny groups, whether the 26fps comes from powder charge or primer, it can be the difference of a gun being "in tune" and not being "in tune".

Have you tested actual on target performance against ballistic calculations? I just wondered if they correspond.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

It just comes down to how serious you are. Theres crazier things guys do than sort primers. Thats pretty normal these days. https://www.amazon.com/Plano-Molding-5324-Organizer-Compartments/dp/B003MP9FH4/?tag=accuratescom-20

 

[quest450]

Sorting primers is not going to make a 1MOA rifle or shooter shoot 1/2 or 1/3 MOA it might clean up ES/SD and it will eliminate another variable in the quest for ultimate accuracy and precision, unless your rifle is capable of shooting really small I wouldn't waste my time sorting, there are many other steps in reloading process that are waaay more important IMO
A quality scale is a must FX120 set to grams will do the job, I store them in the original sleeve and sort one brick at a time

 

[BKA]

Have you tested actual on target performance against ballistic calculations? I just wondered if they correspond.

Of course and they correspond. If they did not correspond, Kestrel and would have been out of business long ago.

 

[gpoldblue]

If you want to see the impact that 26fps has on a projectile, run a ballistic calculator with any cartridge and data set of your choice. Make note of bullet drop at various distances out to 1000 yds. Then run the exact same calculation again with the only change being an increase or decrease in velocity of 26fps and make note of bullet drop at the same distances out to 1000 yds. When comparing your notes, the impact of 26fps becomes very obvious at distance. Go ahead, don't sort primers, I'm always happy to compete with shooters who leave this element of consistency on the table

Ballistic charts are done on a computer and not in the real world just like ballistic coefficients are done on a computer and not in the real world. Balliistic coefficients are only valid in the conditions in which they were
established and that is not in the real world.....too many variables out here in the real world.
Good luck and stay safe.

 

[lotech]

Of course and they correspond. If they did not correspond, Kestrel and would have been out of business long ago.

Thank you for the confirmation. I had no idea computerized ballistic charts were real world accurate.

 

[ISS]

My great-great-grandfather was in the Spanish American War of 1898. He got to keep his Krag and shot NRA HP matches with it. During WWI and II it was hard to get primers. He actually reloaded the spent primers. He kept them in a big kitchen match box. Sitting at the kitchen table, where he did his reloading with a Lyman tong tool. I've done some scary things in my time but nothing to compare with that.
But, yes, sorting them does make a difference in impact.

Rich