Is there a noticeable difference between CCI 200 and CCI BR2 primers?

[NoahbodyImportant]

Is there a noticeable difference between CCI 200 and CCI BR2 primers?

 

[brian427cobra]

My targets and chronograph say there is no difference, only my wallet can tell the difference.

 

[Lapua40X]

I'm testing CCI400, CCI BR4, Remington, Winchester and Federal primers tomorrow. I'll let you know what comes out of the comparative data.

 

[tenring]

Don't know if this is true, but I have read that the BR primers are said to be subject to several inspections.

 

[CatShooter]

Don't know if this is true, but I have read that the BR primers are said to be subject to several inspections.

I have heard that, and once believed it... until I came across a BR-4 with no pellet. Kinda hard to miss that on inspection

When my current inventory of CCI-BR primers are gone, I will find something else.

 

[NoahbodyImportant]

Thank you for the replies.

However, I should have mentioned I did some research and read past forum posts about this subject.

***only difference is the "B"
***the best inspector or best primer maker gets to mark the primers with "B"
***CCI BR2 are more expensive

I was hoping to find somebody that has actually tested (one post states they did with no change) the 2

When the weather here in Ohio warms back up, I plan to test the 2.

Thanks again for the replies.

 

[XTR]

If you could see the difference in a 20 shot test there would be a problem with the CCI200s. I think someone would probably have to set up a test with 100 or more shots with very good controls to see the difference.

 

[NoahbodyImportant]

Thank you Tom

 

[Bob Sebold]

When you weigh them you can tell the difference. BR primers exhibit a much closer weight range, most of time. I had a box once that was marked br but weight was all over the place, exactly like the regular ones. So you do not always get what you pay for. Do they shoot any better? depends on your frame of mind and shooting discipline. I have never conducted at test on them at long range. I do not think it would matter as much at short range, but that's just a guess. If you think it would matter it does. If you don't think it will help, it probably wouldn't. A lot of completion shooting is in the mind. Like Yogi Bera said, 50% of baseball is 90% mental.

 

[ShootDots]

One of the ideas to keep in mind is this: Many, if not most BR shooters for 600+ yard competition use BR's, BRX's and Dashers. Many of those use either Varget or RL-15 AND CCI 450 primers which are NOT "BR" primers. Yet they produce the best results, generally speaking. Is a CCI 200 or 400 any less quality than a CCI 450? Methinks not..

 

[dkhunt14]

Most of the Dashers at Williamsport use BR4's with Varget. Matt

 

[Lapua40X]

I'm testing CCI400, CCI BR4, Remington, Winchester and Federal primers tomorrow. I'll let you know what comes out of the comparative data.

Well, "tomorrow" came and went two days ago but better late than never.
Didn't have CCI200 or CCI BR2 but this comparison between BR and "commoner" primers might be of interest.

Rifle: Remington 40X - 6BR Norma, 27 inch barrel, 1:8 twist
Load: 28.6 grains Varget 1.800 OAL 107 grain Sierra MK
Chronograph: Magnetospeed V2
5 shot groups


Primer Average MV ES SD

CCI 400 Small Rifle 2748 18 8

CCI BR4 Small Rifle 2745 18 8

Winchester 2740 26 10

Remington No. 7 ½ Small Rifle 2754 17 7
Bench Rest Primers

Federal No. 205 Small Rifle 2755 9 4

 

[Gary in MD]

Lapua40X,
Thanks for posting those results. Were there any differences in accuracy?
Gary

 

[Lapua40X]

Lapua40X,
Thanks for posting those results. Were there any differences in accuracy?
Gary

Group sizes ran from .598 to .749 with the CCI 400 being the tightest group and Federal being the most open. But it was a windy cold day with enough discomfort to blame the shooter for the disappointing groups so I wouldn't want to suggest that the .151 variation in group size was necessarily attributable to the primer differences. Each group printed identically on the target, except for size as noted.

 

[amlevin]

I'm testing CCI400, CCI BR4, Remington, Winchester and Federal primers tomorrow. I'll let you know what comes out of the comparative data.

Well, "tomorrow" came and went two days ago but better late than never.
Didn't have CCI200 or CCI BR2 but this comparison between BR and "commoner" primers might be of interest.

Rifle: Remington 40X - 6BR Norma, 27 inch barrel, 1:8 twist
Load: 28.6 grains Varget 1.800 OAL 107 grain Sierra MK
Chronograph: Magnetospeed V2
5 shot groups


Primer Average MV ES SD

CCI 400 Small Rifle 2748 18 8

CCI BR4 Small Rifle 2745 18 8

Winchester 2740 26 10

Remington No. 7 ½ Small Rifle 2754 17 7
Bench Rest Primers

Federal No. 205 Small Rifle 2755 9 4

Want to have a real eye-opener, toss a box of Tula Primers (small or large rifle) into the test.

I found the Tula LR primers to give me exactly the same accuracy as the Fed GM210M primer with lower SD and ES numbers. Another "number" that was a lot lower was the Cost 8)

I think that in times past the "BR" primers WERE better. With modern machines and better quality control overall the difference is probably little or non-existent with many Mfr's. FWIW, the load workups for the Fed's and Tula yielded the exact charge weights for 175 gr SMK's in 308 Win.

 

[Lapua40X]

I lean in favor of your assessment, amlevin. I suspect a series of ten shot groups might provide more meaningful information. I considered that but my time is scarce and my pockets thin and I sometimes find myself yielding so much effort to the vortex of load testing, looking for that "perfect" combination, that I lose out on the real fun of competing with myself. Accepting a good performing load for competition means I can focus on my shooting form and practices. I'll use up the truck load of primers I have but when they're gone it looks like I'll be working with Federal primers in this rifle.

 

[amlevin]

I'll use up the truck load of primers I have but when they're gone it looks like I'll be working with Federal primers in this rifle.

Or maybe do like I did and buy a "sleeve" of Tula primers (5,000) and save almost 50% off the price of Fed's.

 

[Lapua40X]

I'll use up the truck load of primers I have but when they're gone it looks like I'll be working with Federal primers in this rifle.

Or maybe do like I did and buy a "sleeve" of Tula primers (5,000) and save almost 50% off the price of Fed's.

The only reservation I have when I research Tula primers is that the reviews focus exclusively on whether or not they "go bang" with some degree of reliability ..... and nothing else. Do you know where I can find some chronograph test data on them?

 

[broncman]

I disliked Tula at first but when I got low on Federals, I got honest with myself and did a true load workup with them. I found them to be more consistent and the lowest ES of any primer I had tried. I had ES of 10-14 with federals over several batches of ammo. Tula got me into the single digits more consistantly.

Now I just bougt 4k at the gunshow for $25 a thousand so I am happy.

 

[amlevin]

I'll use up the truck load of primers I have but when they're gone it looks like I'll be working with Federal primers in this rifle.

Or maybe do like I did and buy a "sleeve" of Tula primers (5,000) and save almost 50% off the price of Fed's.

The only reservation I have when I research Tula primers is that the reviews focus exclusively on whether or not they "go bang" with some degree of reliability ..... and nothing else. Do you know where I can find some chronograph test data on them?

I finally tossed the "tapes" I had from my testing. Using IMR4064, 175 SMK, Lapua Brass (F/L sized) and Tula LR Primers I had average ES between 8-15 fps and SD from 6-9. This was over more than a dozen "Chrono Days" using a PACT Pro XP with IR sensors. The Fed's were pretty much the same both for "Stat's" and also for charge weights/accuracy. I could use the primers interchangeably with no real discernible difference. That said, the Tula Primers don't flatten as quick as the Fed's