Printable View
Just a friendly note
WR primers appear to be thicker than cci so before you insert a bunch of em you might need to drop your pocket uniformer in a bit to compensate. I hate crushing mine in so I guess I need to go over all my brass
Attachment 234818
Attachment 234819
Interesting
What diameter do both of them measure?
Silly question:
are they both in spec for Large Rifle Primers?
How much do the primers of each brand deviate from eachother?
Here's the SAAMI specs so the new primer shown is within spec. I'll do some measurements for comparison later today. CCI I have found have a wide range of thickness with BR primers out to 127 thou. I uniform my LRP match brass to IIRC 128 thou. Hunting rifle brass I don't bother.
Attachment 234845
you want to crush you primer slightly for consistent ignition
its only 0.15mm in reality, I wouldn't worry. just seat until just flush or below
They seem to seat just fine but I confess I have a rudimentary "wobble test" I do to make sure I don't ever chamber rounds with primers sticking out. I don't want a slam fire on closing the boltQuote:
Originally Posted by Magnetite
I recall federal were like WR I think. Slightly thicker.
Crushing primers is like witnessing somebody scrape fingernails down a blackboard.
Here is a summary of my primer measurements. White River Energetics, as already posted, are seemingly excessively deep. Crushing these primers to get even a flush fitting across the case head is not good IMO. I usually preload my LRPs by 2 thou. My Lapua LRP 308W brass primer pockets are uniformed at 130.5 thou deep.
My findings with the Ginex wrt to their width support what has been appearing on the web pre their availability in NZ, they are hard to seat.
Attachment 235253
Effectively, f....n spellcheck.
Of course I have only posted dimensions. Things like consistancy of spark and intensity are not able to be measured with a micrometer...
Those Ginex will probably do a good job on Hornady brass when primer pocket get loose…Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmer
I loaded up two lots ( onlg 4 rounds each ) of 30.06 today, one with White River Energetics LR and the other with Federal 210 LR primers which I plan to comparatively shoot tomorrow.
Priming the brass I could tell immediately the WR primers sat taller in the primer cup. Still finishing below face level of the case head but not by much and not seating as far as the Federals do.
I will shoot these over the chronograph looking for whatever differences occur. Will report results here.
Interested to know results?
Thanks
Use your pocket uniformer everytime. Clean base for your primer to seat. Do you eat off dirty dishes. 2C.
@Jamesb221Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesb221
Here you go. I think I already posted this somewhere, maybe on another thread and forgot to post here also.
https://i.postimg.cc/DZphdFSD/20231013-163031.jpg
Thats an interesting thought. I hate throwing otherwise perfectly good brass out (to my naked eye) just because of a loose primer lolQuote:
Originally Posted by tibo
Anyone actually put this to the test with Ginex? Not necessarily Hdy brass either...
Greetings @30.06king,
Nothing wrong with the White River primers then. That shot 1 stands out like a shag on a rock as a flyer and wonder if a fouling shot was fired. The velocities look lower than I would expect with that load for both primers, I would have expected a little over 2,800 fps. Nice to see someone testing for accuracy at a longer range.
Regards Grandpamac.
@grandpamacQuote:
Originally Posted by grandpamac
Thanks for your comments.
More than likely there was no fouler fired first in this test. I would have dry patched oil from the bore only. So Shot 1 was the first shot fired. Yes, it appears to be a flyer. Not sure why as the rifle was snug on the rest at shot release. This particular load I tested is not an adopted load at all, merely something I threw together from miscellaneous components for the singular purpose of comparing the two primers. All shots were through a Caldwell sunscreen Chronograph and readings will be a little variable I know from experience. Readings vary relative to light conditions on the day ( this test shot outside in full ambient light ).
Regards velocities and IMR4350, one thing I find consistently with this powder is I get lower velocities that reloading manuals show for given charges. It's not a powder I use much at all although I've tested it in numerous loads. Just found better results overall with other powders. I think I have one load only utilising IMR4350 which is why I have a little on hand.
I came to the same as your conclusion that White River LR primers seem to be perfectly acceptable, at least based on this one test. As noted elsewhere they do sit higher in primer pockets ( in my Norma brass ) than Federal primers but as long as they do not project above the face of the case head I have no issue using them.
Actually, a good next test would be to take a good, consistent and well used load and by exchanging only the primer for the White River sample see how both shoot when compared. When I see an opportunity I'll organise this and report here. Probably with 30.06 and .243W
Greetings again @30.06king,Quote:
Originally Posted by 30.06king
I have a similar test to do. I have been using Federal 215 primers in my 7mm SAUM but am running low. I have read that standard large rifle primers work just as well or better in this cartridge but with a little lower velocity. Federal 210 primers are also low but I have some Fiochii Large rifle that I need to try with the other two. The rifle will be used in F-class next season so accuracy is extra important. The weakness as always does not lie with the rifle.
Regards Grandpamac.
I have started a new thread comparing these Primers. Titled as below:
Comparison of Primers: Federal 210 vs White River Energetics LR
