I decided to post this on the big bore forum, instead of reloading, because I think it will be of more import here than there!

Anyway let me explain. Friday I had a thought about my primer situation. I have about 3000 more Fed 210s than I do Fed 215s which I use the most. So I figured for some of my lighter plinking loads in the 458-416 and 50 B&M I would just as soon use the Fed 210s for that mission, than my coveted Fed 215s!

I was very close to just loading them up without a test, but decided to load some to test just to make sure. Just a couple weeks ago I loaded some 300 gr Rem .458 caliber JHP for the 458 B&M. 57/IMR 4198 gave a consistent, very accurate 2020 fps in an 18 inch 458 B&M. Light load, easy to shoot, accurate, plenty good for pigs and deer. Keeps the bullet within it's terminal performance too. So I loaded up the same load with the Fed 210s and was astounded at how poor they did! There was 215 fps extreme spread in 3 rounds, accuracy was terrible and average velocity had dropped to 1900 fps! A drop in velocity was not an issue, but the accuracy and extreme spread was terrible. I upped the load to 60 grs of IMR 4198 in hopes of increasing velocity, and maybe bringing accuracy and ES back to norms. This helped a bit, but it was still erratic.

I really wanted this to work, and I could not believe the results I was getting. I decided maybe I have a bad box of Fed 210 or something, as I had never experienced this with Fed 210s. In fact they were the main primer I use in cartridges like my 50 B&M Alaskan and 50 Super Short, or any cartridge under say 60 grs of powder being the norm. Never had it been an issue like this. So I got a box of primers that were not of the same lot and tried. Exactly the same results in the 458 B&M.

Now I tried the 50 B&M with the same test. Using a 385 gr Rem with 70 gr IMR 4198 and Fed 210 gave me very excellent results with a 12 fps spread and 2211 fps. Accuracy was excellent. Same exact load with the Fed 215 gave me 2263 fps and yet again 12 fps ES! Accuracy was equally good in both loads? So the same box of Fed 210s that did poor in the 458 B&M did great in the 50 B&M????

Back to the drawing board with the 458. I chose another rifle with 20 inch barrel in 458 B&M to try. Same 300 Rem HP and 60/IMR 4198 and Fed 210 gives me an average of 2073 fps with 163 fps ES-accuracy was good at 50??? Same load with Fed 215s give me an average of 2157 fps and 16 fps ES and excellent accuracy. Same issue, different gun!

OK so we had terrible results in one cartridge/caliber and excellent results in another. Differences? 458 vs .500? This first come to mind, but I quickly eliminated this because Fed 210s had always done great in 45/70 and like. Bullet? Well I think it is possible that a particular bullet within caliber might make a difference, and would tend to believe this over the caliber alone difference. Then another issue entered my mind-the 458 B&M has a shoulder, in other words a bottle neck cartridge, while the 50 B&M is a straight case? Also this would explain why a 45/70 does so well with the Fed 210s. Maybe a bottle neck cartridge of this CALIBER or other large bores, needs the fire of a Fed 215 to burn powder efficiently???

I am not one to change primers once one is chosen for a particular cartridge, even when going to lighter loads. I have never used anything other than Fed 215s in 458 Winchester, 458 Lott, 470 Capstick, 458-416-50 B&M-500 MDM and so forth. Never anything but a Fed 210 in 45/70-50 Alaskan-50 B&M Alaskan-50 Super Short, and so on. So this is the first time I have run into this issue in over 30 yrs of hand loading. I have never seen the need to try or use other primers within a certain cartridge range, one or the other has always proven to work great, within the cartridge that it was chosen for.

I happen to lean towards the necked vs straight case issue at this point. Anyone else have experience with this? Maybe I am behind on this issue and it is common knowledge, but new to me because of my ignorance on said subject, and there are easy answers out there?

Thanks
Michael

Let me add this too, I load plenty of Fed 210s in cartridges like 35 Whelen, 338/06, 358 Winchester, smaller cartridges like 25-223 WSSM and other bottle neck cartridges, no issues, not problems, no nothing? Is it large bore caliber specific to necked down cartridges, and smaller bore cartridges not effected?

I don't think it is a particular batch of primers for sure, used two separate boxes from different lots, not to mention that same primers in the 50 B&M performed perfectly. Then the issue is not gun specific, because I used two different rifles in 458 B&M. A little bit of a mystery to me?

Thanks again
Michael

Michael,
I am surprised and perplexed at the results .. I too use standard primers for under 70 grains of powder .. I am suprised

Jeffe

Me too? I never run into anything like this?

That's why I put it out there, there is no real logical reason that I know for fact.

Maybe someone?

Michael

I was developing loads for a friend a while back, for his 300 RUM.

Just out of curiousity, I thought I would subsititute 210M primers for the 215.

Every round I fired had a distincy hangfire, but the accuracy was extrenely good - bullets cuts each other!

Normal large rifle primers are fine to use for reduced loads in larger cases.

I use them in the 577 T.Rex with UNIQUE and a filler.

Fillers are either those used for shotgun shells, kapok or tissue paper.

All have the same excellent results.

As suggested above, if a charge is over 70 grains, I use 215.

Saeed

The hangfire is a strange deal, and all I can come up with is in the 300 RUM that might have been a lot of powder for a 210 to burn?

The loads I was trying to load are probably middle of the road loads, not truly reduced, like to 1200-1500 fps or so, but just to the point as to not exceed the terminal performance of that particular bullet, roughly 500 fps less than top loads in the cartridge. I agree, that standard primers for reduced loads should be fine. All reduced loads I ever used in any cartridge I used the same primers as full potential loads. For example, a reduced load in 458 Lott, I would still use a Fed 215--just always seemed to keep thing simple, and worked out just fine.

The only reason at all that I was going to use the Fed 210s was to reduce the use of my coveted Fed 215s-I am down to 6000 or so currently.

Michael

I always used fed 215's for any powder charge over 60grs as a rule of thumb. Hang Fires are serious stuff and in my collection of gun Kabooms have been described frquently before the final Finish occurs. Should the primer light off just enough powder to push the bullet well into the barrel and lodge, follwed by delayed ignition of the remaining powder, a kaboom is likely to happen. I recognize the need to conserve 215;s but with 6000 primers you should be ok till the hording craze is over. Heck i doubt I have 3000 myself.-Rob

Rob

In 100% agreement, only I take it a step further. Any cartridge that uses loads over 60 grs it gets Fed 215s end of story, regardless of reduced loads or not. This is the only time in 30 yrs I have tried anything else, and look what it got me? Strange and different results, even on a charge less than 60 grs. Fed 210 should burn 60 without issue, this is why I can't quite get a handle on what is what, in this particular situation. I am sure there may not ever be a definitive answer for this, as it defies normal logic. But as handloaders and shooters we sometimes run into some strange goings on.

Yep, 6000 should do me awhile, no doubt, and I am in agreement. This past year I found that I used around 4000 215s. This year should be lighter as I am only working on a few different cartridges that will use 215s. Hopefully production of primers will catch up in the next 6 months or so.

Thanks for the input

Michael

A friend of mine tried some 300 RUM loads w/ CCI Benchrest primers and was getting some VERY distinct hangfires. RUM's are high enough pressure for me w/ out the hangfires.

Any discussion of hangfires actually terrifies me. I was part of a group that received CCI-35 primers that had cracks in the cups. This was for .50BMGs. I was in a match when I had a click, thump, boom and smoke blast back over my bolt. I DNF'd the match as i could not get my bolt open. I removed the barrel and my Mcmillan extractor was in 10 pieces and my bolt face was plasma torched. Barrel was slugged and intact although slightly looser in the middle than it was before. It happened to about 10 other shooters over a year time frame and we ultimately got together and with a lawyer had seriuos discussions with CCI. Bad batches of primers do occur and their QC probably isnt what it once was. The CCI story in the end was unbelievable. Luckily no one was injured so they got away easy.
You might call Federal with the lot number and see what they have to say.
While I'm sure you did this, check the flash holes in those cases for residual primer hole metal flashing or even too small a hole size. I've found residual flashing that would fold over on loading and interfere with ignition in the past. Its hard to see as its inside the case and usually at a right angle to the hole.
Hang Fires are a wake-up call to stop immediately!-Rob

CCI-450 was the only primer I ever had issues with. Happened with two distinct lots and it scared me to be honest. Not a great feeling, luckily it was a 17 caliber rifle. I put my head under the table and counted to 60.

Fortunately I never experienced the hangfires, just lousy accuracy and horrible extreme spreads.

Michael

Here's a monkeywrench in the whole deal.......

When I started to develop a load fro my .375 Wby, I tried IMR-4320, IMR and H-4350. All were lit with 215M primers. Accuracy varied from unacceptable to horrible. I, then, tried H-414. Groups tightened significantly. But I still wasn't happy. I was about at wits' end. I stuck together a small batch of rounds with 92 gr. of the H-414 and 210M primers behind a 250 gr. Game King. Velocity came up nearly 100 fps over the identical load with a 215M. 5-shot groups went under 1 1/2", velocity spreads are small and there are absolutely no visible signs of excessive pressures. I've never had anything remotely resembling a hangfire. Could be that the ball-type 414 responds differently to the primer switch than an extruded propellant. One of those things that made no horse sense at the time. But desperate times called for desperate measures.

Strut

Monkeywrench for sure! Has no logic whatsoever!

However, I have come to believe that there are at least 1 million variables we deal with when it comes to handloading and shooting! Your particular experience does not make anymore sense, than my issue that started the thread. I am also convinced that there are some things we do, we may never have a full understanding of! For instance, I am closing in on a 1/2 century in a couple of months, and I still do not understand women! Some things may be out of our reach!

Michael

quote:

I use them in the 577 T.Rex with UNIQUE and a filler.

Fillers are either those used for shotgun shells, kapok or tissue paper.

I too, have experienced hang-fires and eratic ignition using reduced charges in relatively large cases. As Saeed has said, try using kapoc or tissue paper filler to hold the powder firmly back against the flash hole. I think you will find very much improved accuracy and more consist deviation in velocity and improved accuracy.