At least this would be a taxpayer supported Canadian business that I could/would support. Not just a charity for some to funnel tax dollars to their friends and family.
Somebody really needs to create an independent Canadian primer fab
- Thread starter steelgray
- Start date
At least this would be a taxpayer supported Canadian business that I could/would support. Not just a charity for some to funnel tax dollars to their friends and family.
A million primers? That wouldn't last a day on the retail market. I know of a local ammo manufacturer who has to place a minimum order for half a million primers ... for a single shop.
We need someone to produce for sale several billion primers.
Nammo Group (which owns Lapua and Vihtavuori) is building a new primer factory in Vihtavuori, Finland.
https://www.lapua.com/nammo-builds-primer-factory-in-vihtavuori-finland/
But we won't see any civilian supply until about 2027, and I suspect they will be first supplying all the armed forces of the western European countries and Baltic states who have just woken up to the need to have one heck of alot of ammo on hand at all times, plus lots of guns to shoot it, because kinder, gentler peace, love and unicorns just hasn't worked out as planned.
Lapua has already "temporarily" shut down some of its civilian brass and ammo manufacture in order to meet the rapidly increasing orders for the military market.
Fiocchi USA announced its building a lead-free primer plant in Arkansas.
https://fiocchiusa.com/news/fiocchi-usa-selects-little-rock,-arkansas-for-new-primer-manufacturing-facility.html
If things stay on schedule, they say it will be sometime after 2025 that we will see any product available from the new Fiocchi plant.
Both of these examples are big industry projects, with really big investment dollars for getting started. Not anything like the "micro fab" scale that Steelgray has described.
I think Steelgray's micro fab idea is not impossible, and has some feasible factors in its favour:
- many small, economically depressed municpal governments, sometimes in partnership with provincial gov't partners, will work a tax incentive deal with investors to provide land on the town outskirts, because they are dieing to attract industry to their local workforce.
- If the plant is well out of town, that should reduce insurance costs because if it catches fire, no urban or rural infrastructure is at risk.
- Fire and emergency service would be part of the municipal tax incentives deal, factored in.
- The Canadian dollar is chronically weak against the US dollar. That means Canadian products on average can be cheaper to buy for Americans and anyone else paying in USD.
Factors against: I have read that most of the world's Antimony supply is from China, Russia, and Tajikistan. Not good, not good at all!
In fact we are headed into a world-wide antimony shortage, and big trouble in many industries, unless a new source is found.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2021/05/06/antimony-the-most-important-mineral-you-never-heard-of/?sh=20b87d0e2b23
Googling keyword phrases like: "ammunition primer substitute for antimony", generates some hits for articles.
Federal has developed a lead-free primer called "Catalyst", for pistol primers, which is now being produced by CCI/Speer
https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2022/12/cci-commences-lead-free-primer-production-in-idaho/
I am not sure if it has replaced antimony with something else? And its not clear if it will ever be available for reloaders in rifle primers?
Anyways, if a micro fab plant idea was feasible, I would suggest a marketing plus would be lead-free and antimony-free.
And now, how about this for a new fun conspiracy theory to kick around:
The primer companies have deliberately created this primer shortage to stimulate bulk binge buying of the last of their lead styphnate / antimony based primers, so that they can clear the old inventory, and squeeze out the last value from their old plants. The increased prices are for us consumers to help them finance their new lead-free primer plants.
Any day now we will wake up and find a new lead-free small and large rifle primer well stocked on the shelves that they were secretly producing in the Federal/CCI plants for years, getting ready for the big switch. Somehow all their workers in the plants kept the secret. (ya....right! )
https://www.lapua.com/nammo-builds-primer-factory-in-vihtavuori-finland/
But we won't see any civilian supply until about 2027, and I suspect they will be first supplying all the armed forces of the western European countries and Baltic states who have just woken up to the need to have one heck of alot of ammo on hand at all times, plus lots of guns to shoot it, because kinder, gentler peace, love and unicorns just hasn't worked out as planned.
Lapua has already "temporarily" shut down some of its civilian brass and ammo manufacture in order to meet the rapidly increasing orders for the military market.
Fiocchi USA announced its building a lead-free primer plant in Arkansas.
https://fiocchiusa.com/news/fiocchi-usa-selects-little-rock,-arkansas-for-new-primer-manufacturing-facility.html
If things stay on schedule, they say it will be sometime after 2025 that we will see any product available from the new Fiocchi plant.
Both of these examples are big industry projects, with really big investment dollars for getting started. Not anything like the "micro fab" scale that Steelgray has described.
I think Steelgray's micro fab idea is not impossible, and has some feasible factors in its favour:
- many small, economically depressed municpal governments, sometimes in partnership with provincial gov't partners, will work a tax incentive deal with investors to provide land on the town outskirts, because they are dieing to attract industry to their local workforce.
- If the plant is well out of town, that should reduce insurance costs because if it catches fire, no urban or rural infrastructure is at risk.
- Fire and emergency service would be part of the municipal tax incentives deal, factored in.
- The Canadian dollar is chronically weak against the US dollar. That means Canadian products on average can be cheaper to buy for Americans and anyone else paying in USD.
Factors against: I have read that most of the world's Antimony supply is from China, Russia, and Tajikistan. Not good, not good at all!
In fact we are headed into a world-wide antimony shortage, and big trouble in many industries, unless a new source is found.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2021/05/06/antimony-the-most-important-mineral-you-never-heard-of/?sh=20b87d0e2b23
Googling keyword phrases like: "ammunition primer substitute for antimony", generates some hits for articles.
Federal has developed a lead-free primer called "Catalyst", for pistol primers, which is now being produced by CCI/Speer
https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2022/12/cci-commences-lead-free-primer-production-in-idaho/
I am not sure if it has replaced antimony with something else? And its not clear if it will ever be available for reloaders in rifle primers?
Anyways, if a micro fab plant idea was feasible, I would suggest a marketing plus would be lead-free and antimony-free.
And now, how about this for a new fun conspiracy theory to kick around:
The primer companies have deliberately created this primer shortage to stimulate bulk binge buying of the last of their lead styphnate / antimony based primers, so that they can clear the old inventory, and squeeze out the last value from their old plants. The increased prices are for us consumers to help them finance their new lead-free primer plants.
Any day now we will wake up and find a new lead-free small and large rifle primer well stocked on the shelves that they were secretly producing in the Federal/CCI plants for years, getting ready for the big switch. Somehow all their workers in the plants kept the secret. (ya....right!
)
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
having had some contract with NRCAN, I can see where they would be throwing up roadblocks and even once you have built you facility (and bunkers) they would then use their interpretation of what the regulations really mean to tell you that your facilities were not properly designed.
They certainly won't commit to any assessments on a design or help with any engineering or design work.
And have not issues with changing their interpretations of regulations to suit their goals and opinions.
you would really need to buy a good sized tract of land and put your manufacturing facility near the middle but far enough away from your storage bunkers which also need to be built near the middle of the property, with any offices constructed on the edge of the property, add a bunch of security fencing, I'm guessing minimum 8' chain link and security.
They certainly won't commit to any assessments on a design or help with any engineering or design work.
And have not issues with changing their interpretations of regulations to suit their goals and opinions.
you would really need to buy a good sized tract of land and put your manufacturing facility near the middle but far enough away from your storage bunkers which also need to be built near the middle of the property, with any offices constructed on the edge of the property, add a bunch of security fencing, I'm guessing minimum 8' chain link and security.
I'm really glad that I started this post because there has been a fantastic response from people who obviously have some great ideas.
I find the post below to be especially well-researched and thoughtful. As for the idea of using leadfree primer chemistry technology in the proposed micro fab, I really like the suggestion. I personally have bought and used lead-free primers - as are required for use in our indoor shooting range. I know that the European stuff, by Fiocchi that was on the market, a few years back, is very good.
I think that Biologist is right that lead-free primers will eventually take-over from existing primers, which use lead styphnate and/ or antimony in their detonation charge. If the micro fab started-off as a producer of heavy metal-free primers, it would actually be selling a product which is inherently better than the existing types of primers that everyone is currently desperate to buy. Obviously, if the trend is toward lead-free primers, setting-up the fab to use that technology would “future-proof” the operation.
Indeed, if Biologist is right - that the four major primer producers have already been producing and stockpiling lead-free primers, for years, anticipating a change in the market - they are probably doing so because they know that the end is insight for heavy metal primers; due to their known health-related problems.
For example, the big four could well know that there are changes coming in regulations for what you can make a primer out of. I suppose most readers here know that - in a slightly similar vein - there is apparently a move to close-down all remaining lead smelters, in the US.
Attached is a paper that deals with Federal’s catalyst technology (LINK). This will certainly mean more to Biologist than it does to me, but the implication that I draw is that these primers are made using three key components; being cellulose, aluminum and bismuth to create at bismuth/aluminum thermite reaction.
I'm guessing that as a bonus, if the fab used this technology for its primers, you would also have less hassles - in terms of obtaining the necessary materials to make the primer compound. Biologist could certainly correct me here, but I'm assuming that it would be a lot easier for a fab to be approved which didn’t use lead-based materials in its production processes. Further, I'd also think that it's not really that difficult to obtain cellulose, aluminum and bismuth in Canada - as long as you had a legitimate business use for buying those reagents.
The only other way to go to achieve lead-free boxer-type primer production, in such a budget-minded micro fab - would be to make the primers, using second world war primer chemistry, which again is non-toxic and uses easy-to-obtain chemicals. However that Second World War/ pre-1950’s commercial primer technology is corrosive. Such “H-48”-type primers apparently use a ) Potassium Chlorate powder, b) Antimony Sulfide powder, c) Sulfur powder, d) finely ground glass preferably pyrex (consistency of flour) or grit and e) Sodium Bicarbonate powder (i.e., baking soda). This is basically the chemistry used in prime-all kits. SEE LINK
I have one extra idea to add to this equation. Maybe, instead of producing its own anvils and caps, the fab should buy these from a Canadian or even foreign producer with these made to the fab’s specs. This of course would mean that the fab wouldn't need to invest in the capital equipment for stamping and you could probably buy these components - at a really low price - from somebody who already had excess stamping capacity. This would probably limit the fab’s capital cost to the cost of having any relevant stamping dies made. The fab would want to own the dies - to keep the subcontractor from hypothetically making a bunch of other caps and anvils for a potential competitor.
I find the post below to be especially well-researched and thoughtful. As for the idea of using leadfree primer chemistry technology in the proposed micro fab, I really like the suggestion. I personally have bought and used lead-free primers - as are required for use in our indoor shooting range. I know that the European stuff, by Fiocchi that was on the market, a few years back, is very good.
I think that Biologist is right that lead-free primers will eventually take-over from existing primers, which use lead styphnate and/ or antimony in their detonation charge. If the micro fab started-off as a producer of heavy metal-free primers, it would actually be selling a product which is inherently better than the existing types of primers that everyone is currently desperate to buy. Obviously, if the trend is toward lead-free primers, setting-up the fab to use that technology would “future-proof” the operation.
Indeed, if Biologist is right - that the four major primer producers have already been producing and stockpiling lead-free primers, for years, anticipating a change in the market - they are probably doing so because they know that the end is insight for heavy metal primers; due to their known health-related problems.
For example, the big four could well know that there are changes coming in regulations for what you can make a primer out of. I suppose most readers here know that - in a slightly similar vein - there is apparently a move to close-down all remaining lead smelters, in the US.
Attached is a paper that deals with Federal’s catalyst technology (LINK). This will certainly mean more to Biologist than it does to me, but the implication that I draw is that these primers are made using three key components; being cellulose, aluminum and bismuth to create at bismuth/aluminum thermite reaction.
I'm guessing that as a bonus, if the fab used this technology for its primers, you would also have less hassles - in terms of obtaining the necessary materials to make the primer compound. Biologist could certainly correct me here, but I'm assuming that it would be a lot easier for a fab to be approved which didn’t use lead-based materials in its production processes. Further, I'd also think that it's not really that difficult to obtain cellulose, aluminum and bismuth in Canada - as long as you had a legitimate business use for buying those reagents.
The only other way to go to achieve lead-free boxer-type primer production, in such a budget-minded micro fab - would be to make the primers, using second world war primer chemistry, which again is non-toxic and uses easy-to-obtain chemicals. However that Second World War/ pre-1950’s commercial primer technology is corrosive. Such “H-48”-type primers apparently use a ) Potassium Chlorate powder, b) Antimony Sulfide powder, c) Sulfur powder, d) finely ground glass preferably pyrex (consistency of flour) or grit and e) Sodium Bicarbonate powder (i.e., baking soda). This is basically the chemistry used in prime-all kits. SEE LINK
I have one extra idea to add to this equation. Maybe, instead of producing its own anvils and caps, the fab should buy these from a Canadian or even foreign producer with these made to the fab’s specs. This of course would mean that the fab wouldn't need to invest in the capital equipment for stamping and you could probably buy these components - at a really low price - from somebody who already had excess stamping capacity. This would probably limit the fab’s capital cost to the cost of having any relevant stamping dies made. The fab would want to own the dies - to keep the subcontractor from hypothetically making a bunch of other caps and anvils for a potential competitor.
Last edited:
FWIW.. I worked in a tool and die shop that built a stamping die to make the end-caps for ford transport truck diesel tanks. The stamped part was about 500 mm by 350 mm. The shaping bit took something like 8 wire-cut and polished die-steels that fit in the "die" with .001"tolerances, had a bunch of hydraulics, pneumatics, and shearing bits involved - the cost for one of these stamping dies was $60,000. (yes, 60K$Canadian). To make one part for a Ford truck. And that was in 2015.
Considering how tight the tolerances need to be to create the little cups, in mass production, along with the little anvils and the contact explosive compound, assemble them and test some of the product, in a plant that can take in raw materials and ship out finished parts, I wouldn't bet on spending less than a half million bucks just to have the machinery set up and tested. And I'm actually very naive about how much stuff costs.
Considering how tight the tolerances need to be to create the little cups, in mass production, along with the little anvils and the contact explosive compound, assemble them and test some of the product, in a plant that can take in raw materials and ship out finished parts, I wouldn't bet on spending less than a half million bucks just to have the machinery set up and tested. And I'm actually very naive about how much stuff costs.
This is more useful information (below). I'm guessing that when a tool and die shop makes a die for Ford, they do so for a press intended to high volume, high speed production (and they might add and extra zero to the price too - just because it is Ford; as I certainly would also do).
I would think that a die that works in maybe a 12 ton hydraulic press and which can produce say 50-100 cups or anvils per press would be plenty. Otherwise, you'll hate me for saying this, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is already a vendor of LRP-format primer cups and anvils out there - say, on Alibaba.
Finally, we all have a basement full of used primers. While I don't like this idea, I acknowledge that another option would be that the fab sets-up as a remanufacturer of primers and takes in and refurbishes primers to as-new condition - repacking these with the latest, non-corrosive lead free prime compounds. Such a "primer refurb fab" wouldn't need a lot of capital equipment, but would be more labour-intensive.
Taking this into account, especially if the chemistry used was totally non-toxic, you could maybe pitch this as a sort of "recycling operation" and maybe get start-up grants employment grants etc. - as long as you didn't tell anyone what the primers are for ;-) . (JOKE)
Heck, you are keeping old fire primers from going to the landfills and creating eco-friendly, lead free primers - potentially reducing the demand for those nasty, metal-based primers.
You could require that the client provides their own used primers as an exchange item (like you turn in your old starter as a core when you buy a rebuild, or you drop off your old propane take to get a refilled replacement).
As for permitting, the primer refurbishment fab probably would just need the kind of licenses and permits that Bear Reloads had, when they were operating some where around Kingston. Maybe their old business licenses and permits could be reused by such a new operation.
AGAIN, this is NOT how I'd like to see this opportunity developed, but I have to admit it is an option that would overcomes many of the applicable business challenges.
I would think that a die that works in maybe a 12 ton hydraulic press and which can produce say 50-100 cups or anvils per press would be plenty. Otherwise, you'll hate me for saying this, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is already a vendor of LRP-format primer cups and anvils out there - say, on Alibaba.
Finally, we all have a basement full of used primers. While I don't like this idea, I acknowledge that another option would be that the fab sets-up as a remanufacturer of primers and takes in and refurbishes primers to as-new condition - repacking these with the latest, non-corrosive lead free prime compounds. Such a "primer refurb fab" wouldn't need a lot of capital equipment, but would be more labour-intensive.
Taking this into account, especially if the chemistry used was totally non-toxic, you could maybe pitch this as a sort of "recycling operation" and maybe get start-up grants employment grants etc. - as long as you didn't tell anyone what the primers are for ;-) . (JOKE)
Heck, you are keeping old fire primers from going to the landfills and creating eco-friendly, lead free primers - potentially reducing the demand for those nasty, metal-based primers.
You could require that the client provides their own used primers as an exchange item (like you turn in your old starter as a core when you buy a rebuild, or you drop off your old propane take to get a refilled replacement).
As for permitting, the primer refurbishment fab probably would just need the kind of licenses and permits that Bear Reloads had, when they were operating some where around Kingston. Maybe their old business licenses and permits could be reused by such a new operation.
AGAIN, this is NOT how I'd like to see this opportunity developed, but I have to admit it is an option that would overcomes many of the applicable business challenges.
Last edited:
Most gun owners aren't going to pay a premium for lead-free primers though. I can only imagine heavy-metal-free primers would be more expensive to produce (otherwise the big companies would have all switched over already) which means now you're talking about producing a product that is more expensive yet having to figure out how to sell it for very close to the price of conventional primers to sell anywhere near the quantity you would need to sell to make this a viable business.
No we don't. For most people garbage goes in the trash, it doesn't just collect in our basement.
there is an instagram, grindhard ammo. they post video of their pristine shop. and fully automated loading machinery going plink plink plink as ammo falls into a box..
epoxy floor, art painted on the walls, machines 20FT apart. looks like a dream shop to own.
when you look at it, it does look like an incredibly easy business plan. it costs X to make, sell for Y profit.
in reality its probably easier to take that concept and apply it to making pizzas, bagels or donuts..
if their is one group of people with the equipment and ability to skirt around some rules , it would probably be a local hutterite colony and could turn a section of manufacturing shop into a small factory.
epoxy floor, art painted on the walls, machines 20FT apart. looks like a dream shop to own.
when you look at it, it does look like an incredibly easy business plan. it costs X to make, sell for Y profit.
in reality its probably easier to take that concept and apply it to making pizzas, bagels or donuts..
if their is one group of people with the equipment and ability to skirt around some rules , it would probably be a local hutterite colony and could turn a section of manufacturing shop into a small factory.
It overcomes almost none of them. You still require machinery, you've introduced more manual labour and an unreliable essential materials supply by using existing primers, and you STILL have to deal with explosives, and all of the associated costs and regulations that go along with that. The most significant hurdle still exists, and you've added more.
You're really bad at accepting the general consensus that your ideas aren't very good, lol.
Is this a RUG, you meant 2% on fuel sales right?
.30/06 FTW
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Thunder Bay, Ontario
Man, the more this guy talks, the more ridiculous his ideas become.
It is a sad fact that there are people like .30/06 FTW who seem to have nothing better to do than go from one thread to the next to just make negative comments about the poster or the subject - while adding nothing of value to the discussion.
I try to ignore them, but imagine that they must be truly empty, disturbed people.
You can form your own opinion about this. Here is a list of .30/06 FTW's latest posts. Please CLICK ON THIS LINK TO SEE THIS GUY'S CONTINUAL STRING OF GRATUITOUSLY-NASTY POSTS (LINK)..
To the many others who seem genuinely interested in this topic, please continue to contribute. Your thoughtful contributions are truly appreciated. This thread isn't about me, it is about the subject - and the subject is important.
I try to ignore them, but imagine that they must be truly empty, disturbed people.
You can form your own opinion about this. Here is a list of .30/06 FTW's latest posts. Please CLICK ON THIS LINK TO SEE THIS GUY'S CONTINUAL STRING OF GRATUITOUSLY-NASTY POSTS (LINK)..
To the many others who seem genuinely interested in this topic, please continue to contribute. Your thoughtful contributions are truly appreciated. This thread isn't about me, it is about the subject - and the subject is important.
Last edited:
this is a good idea !
sell the components… just like we buy powder n bullets for reloading.
sell the primer cups, anvils, and chemical we can mix ourselves
.. this would avoid the manufacturing problems and absurd govt regs.
sell the components… just like we buy powder n bullets for reloading.
sell the primer cups, anvils, and chemical we can mix ourselves
.. this would avoid the manufacturing problems and absurd govt regs.
This!
I'm surprised nobody has done this for .32rf that ammo goes for ridiculous prices at auctions so likely decent money to be made drawing some brass for it.
I do not doubt your conclusions about manufacturing costs for the utmost precision for that single part in the Ford example you gave. But I am wondering if in fact the tolerances for primer cups is actually a simpler consideration than a precision part that is metallically hard and must absolutely fit within extreme tolerances.
My understanding of primer cups is that they are a soft alloy that is over-sized and made to "crush fit". This crush fit must work across all the brass cartridge manufacturers tolerance variances for the relevant primer pocket size, plus these need to crush fit across the life of brass for reloading as the primer pocket gradually enlarges with repeated firings.
In other words, the tolerance for height and diameter of the cup is "easier" to meet because is soft and crushable to fit, and will fit across a range of primer pocket sizes.
SAAMI shows the large and small rifle primer sizes and their tolerance ranges in the "Voluntary Industry Performance Standards for Pressure and Velocity of Centerfire Rifle Ammunition for the Use of Commercial Manufacturers"
I am not qualified to know how "easy" it is to make a tool or machine to achieve that tolerance, so you can check that out to see what it would entail. The tolerance for final seating of the primer in brass is specified as flush to 0.008 below flush. I am guessing (but do not know), that the 0.008 tolerance for seating depth is not an expensive constraint for a micro fab shop to achieve in tool making with the soft alloy?
But I am a Biologist, I know nothing about machining or manufacturing of stuff.
I agree that given inflation these days, most gun owners would not pay an excessive premium for the lead-free primers.
But as for the assumption that the lead-free alternative is more expensive, I do not agree that is a "given", yet.
In my very short time researching this issue, I get the sense that the difficulty so far has been the discovery of the chemistry. It was a mystery to solve for how to achieve reliable ignition across a wide range of temperatures. My understanding is that the recent discoveries are using commonly available and inexpensive ingredients, and that it may not mean higher costs....at least for the ingredient materials. However I have no idea about the costs needed to cook up the final product in whatever chemical processes are involved - that may entail more costs, who knows. If energy inputs are greater, and there are more handling steps, then maybe it is more expensive. But so far I have not read that it necessarily is more expensive. We'll see as these products come onto the market.
Right now, I think the writing is on the wall for Antimony supply. All of it is going to be consumed by the EV battery industry and other batteries and electronics industries, plus the military getting its share before other sectors. We could easily run out of Antimony soon. We are going to need alternatives.
In the creation of anything new, all the ideas at the beginning are "brainstorming" to get the creative juice flowing, and to attract ideas from others. Straw dogs that are clearly incomplete and cannot work as-is, are normal steps in developing new ideas. Iteration is a process. Thomas Edison tested over 6,000 filaments when attempting to invent the light bulb for commercial sales. The invention of the light bulb was failure upon failure upon failure...until it finally worked.
Most every new idea is fraught with problems, flaws, failures and reasons why it cannot work. But all good ideas start this way. If it was easy, someone would have done it earlier. New ways of doing things are often very hard to figure out, and go through several cycles of failure in experimentation. But it does not mean they can never work and maybe be a success.
Last edited:
