Substituting-primers-and-playin-with-the-9mm

just having some fun

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
42   0   0
Information for reloaders Primer Substituting

Looks like primer does not matter as much as the powder used

Use this data at your own risk ..... Work up loads .... Use Data from a reliable source ......

This Data is from the internet and data could be good or Bad :) or :(
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ht tps://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?448691-Substituting-primers-and-playin-with-the-9mm

From Post # 20
9mm; SP and SR primers

The last few months there have been several threads regards the use of SP magnum and/or SR primers in the 9mm cartridge. I had conducted a test of SP and SR primers in the 357 Magnum and posted the results [https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...he-357-Magnum]. In that cartridge with Unique powder there was enough evidence demonstrating the SP Magnum and SR primers could raise the psi enough to warrant caution in doing so.

However, does that correspond to the 9mm cartridge which was the subject of the question. Some definitely thought the substitution should not be made. Others were adamant that using a SP Magnum or SR primer in the 9mm with a given load posed no problem. A video showing a limited test by a commercial reloader demonstrated no different in pressure or velocity. Others stated they found little variance in chronographed velocity as proof there was no difference in psi. I proposed caution be used should it be necessary to substitute SP Magnum or SR primers in the 9mm with a given load.

I have just completed 3 additional more fairly comprehensive pressure/velocity tests of 3 different powders [Bullseye, VV 3N37 and HS-6] in the 9mm cartridge.
A commercial loader request I test the 9mm cartridge with CCI’s 500, 550 SP primers using 6.1 gr VV 3N37 under a 115 gr FMJ bullet. He supplied the powder and the bullets.
To provide a comparative reference I also loaded test rounds with the same primers using 4.9 gr Alliant Bullseye and the 115 FMJ bullets [listed as a maximum] and also included the CCI 400 SR primer and the CCI 450 SR magnum primers. Testing was done in a 10” Contender barrel with a strain gauge affixed and connected to the Oehler M43 PBL. The SAAMI MAP for the 9mm cartridge is 35,000 psi.

The test of the comparative reference load [4.9 gr Bullseye] proved quite interesting. The test results briefly;
Primer, velocity average, psi average:

CCI 500 SP primers; 1331 fps, 35,000

CCI 550 SP Magnum primers; 1341 fps, 35,000 psi

CCI 400 SR primers; 1338 fps, 35,000 psi

CCI 450 SR Magnum primers; 1330 fps, 35,000 psi

Note the test to test variation in velocity is well within the test to test expected variation of the same load. What was really surprising was the pressure for each and every shot, regardless of the primer, was exactly the same…..right at the SAAMI MAP for the 9mm cartridge. Looking at the internals [time/pressure curves, area under the curve and rise to pressure] a slight difference could be noted. The CCI 550 SP Magnum and the CCI 450 SR Magnum primers gave slightly more uniform internals than either the standard SP or SR primers!

I then conducted the second test using the provide VV 3N37 powder. The test results;

CCI 500 SP primers; 1236 fps, 32,300 psi

CCI 550 SP Magnum primers; 1253, 34,500 psi

Note, with the use of VV 3N37 powder, we have a distinct difference in results with this test than with the previous test with Bullseye. The internal ballistic measurements again indicated the CCI 550 primer gave slightly more uniform ballistics. The CCI 550 Magnum primer also gave a noted increase in velocity [20 fps increase vs the 10 fps difference with Bullseye] and an increase in pressure of 2,200 psi.

In a previous thread it was Lloyd Smale (If memory serves me correct as I couldn’t find the thread with “search”] that was adamant with is 9mm load of HS-6 in didn’t matter with his mid-level HS-6 load what primer was used as all were “safe”. He also rather adamantly suggested I test HS-6 and find out. So I did.

Lyman lists 6.2 gr HS-6 as their max load under a 120 gr 356402 bullet. I didn’t have the Lyman bullet but have the Lee 120 gr TC bullet [123 gr cast of COWW + 2% tin], so I chose to use that load. Even though Lyman lists that load as “max” the CUP measurement of 29,300 indicates it is not a “max” load as the CUP SAAMI MAP is 33,000. I have on hand 13 different SP and SR primers [7 SP primers and 6 SR primers] so I loaded up a test with each of them.

Again, the test load was 6.2 gr of Hodgdon HS-6 under the 123 gr Lee TC cast bullets.

The test results by primer used;

Small Pistol primers;

Federal 100 SP primer; 1255 fps, 34,800 psi

CCI 500 SP primer; 1227 fps, 34,700 psi

Magtech 1 ½ SP primer; 1243 fps, 35,000 psi

Winchester WSP SP primer; 1247 fps, 35,000 psi

CCI 550 SP Magnum primer; 1210 fps, 34,400 psi

Federal 200 SP Magnum primer; 1214 fps, 34,700 psi

Winchester WSPM SP Magnum primer; 1253 fps, 35,000 psi

Small Rifle primers;

Remington 7 ½ SR Primer; 1229 fps, 34,700 psi

Winchester WSR SR primer; 1220 fps, 34,800 psi

CCI 400 SR primer; 1237 fps, 34,800

Federal 200 SR primer; 1253 fps, 34,800 psi

CCI 450 SR Magnum primer; 1228 fps, 34,700 psi

Federal 205 SR Magnum primer; 1222 fps, 34,500 psi

Appears Lloyd was certainly correct, there really isn’t much difference regardless of the primer used. Also. interesting to note that 3 of the SP primers pushed the psi right to the SAAMI MAP whereas none of the SR primers did. That is one of the things I really like about this game and that is I’m always learning. In this case I’ve not only learned from actual testing but also through research to find the facts about primers. Turns out, once again, I and most others were misled over the years into thinking SP magnum primers and SR primers would increase the psi with a given load because they were “hotter” or had more explosive power. Turns out that isn’t true. The primers only hold so much compound and the energy produced by that amount of compound is finite. Thus, SP and SR primers essentially hold the same amount pf priming compound which essentially increases the same amount. SPM and SR/SRM primers apparently do not increase the psi per se by themselves. The difference is in the priming compounds and how they “burn”. The SPM and SR/SRM primers compound gives a longer flame burn is all.

So, if that is the case then why did two of the tests [the 357 Magnum with Unique and the 9mm with VV 3N37 powders] show a marked increase in psi with the SPM and/or the SR/SRM primers? The answer to that appears, at least so far, to lie in the nature of the powder used. My guess at this time is any real potential increase in pressure with the use of a SPM or SR/SRM primer will be dependent on what kind of powder is used [single or double based], the kind of deterrent [controls the burn rate] that is used and probably any flash retardant used. Thus, as it turns out, all who participated in the past thread were essentially correct some of the time and potentially wrong at other times. This is evidenced as I’ve not found any conclusive evidence one way or the other to definitively say substituting a SPM or SR/SRM primer in a 9mm load is safe because, like many things we’ve found in reloading, it depends.

I will still, as of this writing, stand by my original suggestion; if one has to substitute a SPM or SR/SRM primer in the 9mm cartridge for a load proven safe with a SP primer developed load then use caution.
 
Playing the alchemist. There is always somebody thinking he know better than the manufacturer…..who know,who published that, methodology, # of sample, and what kind of pressure equipment he has used.f:P:

Dismissing years of data from people making and testing thousand of combination, on laboratory equipment, because small pistol primer are scarce..is just a sure way to end up with unforeseen consequences.

It will just take some kaboom and injuries for our good Libs Gov to deem it is dangerous to reload and stop the sale of components..
 
Last edited:
Playing the alchemist. There is always somebody thinking he know better than the manufacturer…..who know,who published that, methodology, # of sample, and what kind of pressure equipment he has used.f:P:

Dismissing years of data from people making and testing thousand of combination, on laboratory equipment, because small pistol primer are scarce..is just a sure way to end up with unforeseen consequences.

It will just take some kaboom and injuries for our good Libs Gov to deem it is dangerous to reload and stop the sale of components..

#dramaqueen

Its not rocket science. Overpressure pistol caliber rounds aren't overly dangerous. Worst scenario, they split the case and vent gas and some minor shrapnel out the ejection port, maybe taking the extractor with them. Its not the end of world, especially if the shooter is wearing glasses ... like we all should anyway.

Substituting primers is hardly likely to result in a massive overpressure that would split a casing.
 
#dramaqueen

Its not rocket science. Overpressure pistol caliber rounds aren't overly dangerous. Worst scenario, they split the case and vent gas and some minor shrapnel out the ejection port, maybe taking the extractor with them. Its not the end of world, especially if the shooter is wearing glasses ... like we all should anyway.

Substituting primers is hardly likely to result in a massive overpressure that would split a casing.

While I understand what he is saying every time he brings it up it's only his lack of proper experience and intelligence that seems to be the issue. Swapping primers with no care is not wise but it's clearly A-OK in many other simple scenarios, like with basic load development.

If manuals were the only safe bet there would be a lot more blown up guns out there. Besides I recently had to pull 11,000 rounds of 10mm because Hodgdon ####ed up their Longshot data. Thinking the manufacturers or people gathering data for a manual are infallible is especially stupid.
 
Last edited:
Playing the alchemist. There is always somebody thinking he know better than the manufacturer…..who know,who published that, methodology, # of sample, and what kind of pressure equipment he has used.f:P:

Dismissing years of data from people making and testing thousand of combination, on laboratory equipment, because small pistol primer are scarce..is just a sure way to end up with unforeseen consequences.

It will just take some kaboom and injuries for our good Libs Gov to deem it is dangerous to reload and stop the sale of components..

Straight from the horses mouth, but what do they know.

 
No need to call anyone stupid, B. But most of older guys, (you know, those of us who use manuals and can read) learned a long time ago that it is always a great idea to cross-reference any new load with one or two more manuals. Lots of manuals came with an errata sheet. Hint, hint. The editor, publisher, or some unfortunate user, discovered either an error in data generation, or a simple misprint. And, even when using your own data records, it never hurts to check a manual to make sure we are all in the same general vicinity of someone else's data. Unless of course, one is infallible, in which case warn me before shooting your handloads on a range next to me, so I can and relieve my bladder, have a snack, and maybe a snooze until you are done.
 
No need to call anyone stupid, B. But most of older guys, (you know, those of us who use manuals and can read) learned a long time ago that it is always a great idea to cross-reference any new load with one or two more manuals. Lots of manuals came with an errata sheet. Hint, hint. The editor, publisher, or some unfortunate user, discovered either an error in data generation, or a simple misprint. And, even when using your own data records, it never hurts to check a manual to make sure we are all in the same general vicinity of someone else's data. Unless of course, one is infallible, in which case warn me before shooting your handloads on a range next to me, so I can and relieve my bladder, have a snack, and maybe a snooze until you are done.

I have no idea how this is relevant to what I said. You seem to have not understood what I wrote at all. I didn't call anyone stupid and I have several dozen manuals and other resources I use regularly.

If someone wants to tell me primers cannot be safely substituted or that ONLY manufacturer data is safe, I will happily point out the things wrong with such a statement. That is exactly what I did, anything past that is your own incorrect interpretation.

Age does not equal experience or competence, there are members like him and apparently yourself that prove that. If you have the same dumb idea in your head for 50 years I fail to see how I am at any disadvantage for not ever having that dumb idea in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom