Bench rest or match grade primers. Are they REALLY better than standard?

[bruddah]

Does it really make a noticeable difference in the accuracy or consistency of your reloads?

So far I've only used standard primers (CCI), but I have got great results out to 300 yds with an AR15 (.223).

Just curious as to what results you have seen when comparing the two. Especially since I am about to start reloading for .308

Thanks in advance!

 

[ChrisGarrett]

Does it really make a noticeable difference in the accuracy or consistency of your reloads?

So far I've only used standard primers (CCI), but I have got great results out to 300 yds with an AR15 (.223).

Just curious as to what results you have seen when comparing the two. Especially since I am about to start reloading for .308

Thanks in advance!

I use them in my target loads and don't mind paying a small premium for FGMM or CCI BRs. I sleep better at night, knowing that I'm being all that I can be.

You, on the other hand, might not notice a difference.

Only one way to know for sure.

I wouldn't pay double for them, that's for sure.

Chris

 

[rjacobs]

Somebody posted the it was either the CCI BR's or the Federal Match, I cant remember which, are in reality no different than the regular ones, except for which person was operating the machine. One operator, presumably somebody who has been there a LONG LONG time, does a better, more consistent job, so his primers are match grade, while a new guy simply produces non-match primers. I dont know how true that is, but take it for what its worth.

Match grade primers, in theory, should be more consistent than non-match grade. To me, I dont think I would ever be able to tell the difference. Some of the most consistent primers I have seen from a low ES and SD point of view(which isnt the end all be all of judging a primer) were Wolf and I have a hard time believe they can make "match" anything.

I know the Federal Match and CCI BR's around me are going for 45+ per thousand while regular are at 30. I think I will simply shoot 50% more instead of relying on a "match" primer to give me any better accuracy.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

CCI and Federal market Match primers; Remington, RWS, and Winchester don't. What that says, I'm not sure; but I do suspect I may eventually find a lesson in there somewhere.

I work up my loads with standard primers, then do a final test with match primers to see if they make a worthwhile difference. Usually I can't see any, except a random one, which is probably why Match primer are so popular.

My basic rule of thumb uses the application as the deciding factor. If Match points or lives (human or game) are involved, I'll use a Match primer. Essentially this means most of my handloaded ammo uses Match primers. The main exception is SHTF/'...And now we all go to Hell...' ammo.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I routinely shoot Russian surplus and commercial Berdan primed x39 and x54R ammo from the 1970's and 1980's over the past year or two. The corrosive Berdan primers are used primarily because they have an extended shelf life in loaded ammo.

Lately I have obtained steel cased Boxer primed TulAmmo .223 ammunition. Pulling them down and using the primed cases with my typical match handload recipe has permitted me to evaluate them against my own handloads that use PPU brass and commercial match primers. They shoot identically, and they even reload with commercial match primers and shoot just fine. When employed with basic handloading 'due diligence' they shoot are well as brass. The only thing that's different is that steel case necks could benefit from a slight inside chamfer before seating bullets to prevent shaving bullets. Otherwise, mine are on their fourth reloading and seem to work pretty much the same as brass. There is even the theoretical possibility that they might even resist primer pocket growth more favorably. No neck splits so far using RCBS F/L resizing dies, and the case coating seems to be holding up without major deterioration. I clean the cases with an ultrasonic cleaner and Dawn, but leave out the citric acid since I'm not cleaning brass.

Looking into Russian ammo and components over the past year or two has been something of an eye opener. For example, I opened a spamcan of 1980 147gr Russian Light Ball (Plant #60) yesterday and pulled a round randomly. The powder charge weighed precisely the same 49.1gr as the published spec. Not even a little bit definitive, but still kinda reassuring.

Greg

 

[thrusty]

Unfortunately, you will never know the real answer unless CCI or Federal come out and just say it.
If you buy them from the right place, you're not paying too much more for match primers...and if you are spending hours of your time and trying to produce consistent, match ammo...then it's a no brainer to not cut any corners.

If you're trying to mass produce plinking or SHTF ammo...then it doesn't matter much as long as it goes bang.

I have heard from a reliable source and friend that the match primers are no different than their "normal" brand....the only difference is the quality control is more stringent. The primers are checked twice instead of once...so, that's what you're paying for. There is no magical secret family recipe that lowers ES, SD and yields higher velocity when using match primers.....the primers themselves are just more consistently produced and checked which, in turn, yields more consistent SD, ES, and AVG FPS.

 

[BuzzBoss915]

PERSONAL OPINION. Oops, accidental cap lock. But, I think the primer is just about the most minor component, but it is not a totally passive component. You will probably see a slight difference when changing primers. I have solved the problem to my satisfaction by using Fed 210M primers almost exclusively. Playing games with primers, seems a waste of time. Pick a primer and develop a load. Nothing can be gained by developing a load and then deciding to try a different primer. Of course, there might be some noticeable difference, but it's backwards, you should START with a primer, not end with a primer. According to my logic, you pick a primer and begin load development. You don't do all your load development and after it's all settled, decide to queer the whole process by changing primers at the last minute. Think about it; would you develop a load, (all the bench and range time) and suddenly decide to switch bullets, just to see if it's "better"? Not in my world.

I will tell you what I "heard" many years ago when the "match primer/benchrest primer" issue came up. Somebody said; the difference was, at the end of a cycle, after a little housekeeping, everything dialed in to specs., they run the lines at half speed for accuracy and charge a premium for those precious "match" primers. It may not amount to a hill of beans but everybody has their MOJO, so even if it is psychological, you are doing everything possible: a feel good, warm fuzzies type of euphoria. Whatever, it can't hurt and we are all suckers for the slightest perceived advantage, and if money will buy that, we will bend over and assume the position.

I'm not worried, it's like the difference between one penny and the next....they are pretty much all the same. So, why decide to use a nickel, instead? Or, a dime; maybe a "magnum" quarter? Whatever. BB

 

[jonbearman]

I used to think that match primers were the end all primer for accuracy but the truth is your rifle and load will tell you what it likes downrange and through the chrono as far as es or sd.I use everything and all brands but my go to is winchester primers as they have always worked real well for me and remington match primers.I am now going to test tula primers as that is all I can find from time to time.If you google german salzaar and look at the articles in his Riflemans Journal, he has a great article on primers.He is the go to expert on the subject in my opinion.

 

[nuclear_shooter]

The price difference between the match primers from Federal are about $4, depending on where you get them. Thats a increase of a whopping $0.004 per primer. So I would definitely use them *if you can find them* which I can't seem to do. I buy all my primers and powders locally (hazmat fees can get fuxed), and I haven't seen them in stock anywhere.

 

[Ultraman550]

I can tell you that Fiocchi SRP's are extremely thin and pierce easily as well as crater in a 5.56 barrel with a suppressor. The CCI 400 and CCI #41 had zero problems. 20 rounds of each all loaded the exact same, same LC 11 brass, same lot# of H335. Even without the suppressor it showed pressure signs but not the other two. Throw on the suppressor and it was all 20 with serious over pressure signs and 11 of them pierced.

 

[BobinNC]

I'm also one that thinks primers are the smallest and least significant part of the accuracy equation. To me the most important part of a primer is that it goes bang and ignites the powder each and every time in all conditions.

To minimize any potential problems, I long ago standardized my primers and I only buy the following: CCI 450's, Federal 210M's, and Federal 215's

If i can't find an accurate load with one of those primers, I'll change everything but the primer...

Again IMHO and YMMV

 

[ChrisGarrett]

Unfortunately, you will never know the real answer unless CCI or Federal come out and just say it.
If you buy them from the right place, you're not paying too much more for match primers...and if you are spending hours of your time and trying to produce consistent, match ammo...then it's a no brainer to not cut any corners.

If you're trying to mass produce plinking or SHTF ammo...then it doesn't matter much as long as it goes bang.

I have heard from a reliable source and friend that the match primers are no different than their "normal" brand....the only difference is the quality control is more stringent. The primers are checked twice instead of once...so, that's what you're paying for. There is no magical secret family recipe that lowers ES, SD and yields higher velocity when using match primers.....the primers themselves are just more consistently produced and checked which, in turn, yields more consistent SD, ES, and AVG FPS.

CCI states in their reloading manuals, well...at least the two Speer manuals (#11 and #12) that I have, that their best 'cup fillers' work the BR line and that it runs more slowly than the 'standard primer' production line. They state that the BR primers will be more consistently constructed from primer to primer.

Can't speak to Federal's 'match' line, but I'm thinking that it's close to the same deal.

Chris

 

[bigedp51]

Look at the links below and look at the primer flash photos and the firing test charts, both are a very good read.

The Rifleman's Journal

Primers - Large Rifle Primer Study
A Match Primer Study in the 30-06 Cartridge
By Germán A. Salazar
The Rifleman's Journal: Primers - Large Rifle Primer Study

Primers - Small Rifle Primer Study
A Match Primer Study in the 6BR Cartridge
By Germán A. Salazar
The Rifleman's Journal: Primers - Small Rifle Primer Study

 

[Capt Academy]

Interesting topic

 

[bruddah]

Excellent info guys, I really appreciate everyone's input and feedback. I just read the entire article:

Primers - Large Rifle Primer Study
A Match Primer Study in the 30-06 Cartridge
By Germán A. Salazar

Very good info from everyone here AND the article.
Very enlightening.
Again, much thanks!

 

[bruddah]

I'm going back and reading the small rifle primer article now...

 

[rdinak]

I am in between AR's. However when there were three in the safe, they did not know the difference between CCI military primers and Russian primers. All they cared about was Hornday bullets and Ram Shot TAC powder.

OK I have a large stash of FGMM primers for the bolt guns but in an AR who cares? I certainly dont feed the AR's Lapua brass...that would be blasphemy.

 

[KUSA]

Look at the links below and look at the primer flash photos and the firing test charts, both are a very good read.

The Rifleman's Journal

Primers - Large Rifle Primer Study
A Match Primer Study in the 30-06 Cartridge
By Germán A. Salazar
The Rifleman's Journal: Primers - Large Rifle Primer Study

Primers - Small Rifle Primer Study
A Match Primer Study in the 6BR Cartridge
By Germán A. Salazar
The Rifleman's Journal: Primers - Small Rifle Primer Study

The Remington 7 1/2 small rifle primer throws a much larger flame than the large rifle primers except for the Remington 9 1/2. That's darned fascinating.

 

[Name Enough]

Dang I ran low on primers so I decided to break out the Wolf primers I had stashed during the last crisis when HBO was elected. I thought of them as being not up to snuff so I wasn't going to use them. Surprise surprise - they worked better than the Federal primers I was using.
I do know that certain primers seem to work with certain loads better than others.

 

[bigedp51]

The Remington 7 1/2 small rifle primer throws a much larger flame than the large rifle primers except for the Remington 9 1/2. That's darned fascinating.

Remington ran the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant from 1941 to 2002 and they loaded ball powder in the cases and didn't use Winchester primers. Milspec primers are all magnum primers to light off ball powder in cold weather. Wink, wink, hint, hint.
Meaning you could use Remington primers to light off the space shuttles rocket motors.

 

[pinzmann]

I ran an informal test a few years ago with Fed 210, 210M, and Wolf primers. Had a good load going in my GAP 308 - 43.8gr Varget with 175 SMK's. Shot 5 - 5round groups of this load with the 3 diff. primers. The 210M averaged in the high .4's, the 210's averaged in the low .5's and the Wolf's averaged in the .8's. Now maybe this load didn't like thw Wolf primers but I have since stuck with the Federals.

 

[Rprecision]

I run Fed 210M and Winchester LR. I have used the 210M for match loads and Win for most everything else.

I honestly have never been able to tell a difference. I agree with those who stated the primer is low on the list of accuracy.

I am not putting him on a pedestal but would be interested to hear Dan Newberry findings on primers.

 

[elfster1234]

ive shot enough between the two to say..... no difference IMO

 

[Drifter™]

Does it really make a noticeable difference in the accuracy or consistency of your reloads?

Yes, sometimes primers can make a very noticeable difference. Match primers are not necessarily more accurate, as testing is required to learn what works best in your ammo and equipment.

 

[r2shooter]

All I could find earlier this summer was Wolf smr & was a little skeptical. I'd been using CCI 400 & BR-4s only before.
Maybe I got lucky but in the 2 AR's I've tried them in couldn't tell a difference & shot just as well w/the Wolf.

 

[Darkside-Six]

from my personal experience, there wasn't a significant difference between regular primers and match or BR primers. Whoever siad that your loads will determine the performance was dead on IMO.

As for Wolf primers, I have never used them in precision rifle loads. I got a few thousand small rifle primers for loading 5.56 in the early spring because they we all i could find during the big crunch. I was a little skeptical but man...those things performed great!

 

[Danco411]

Since I could not really tell much of a difference in the CCI200's and BR2's in my loads I decided to do a real scientific test. I took six cases with only primers and shot them out of my rifle while on the bipod with the plastic cap on the barrel end (you know the kind that ships with new barrels). My scientific mind decided that the distance each flew would determine which was hotter and how consistent they were.

Results:

CCI200

Shot 1: 19ft 3"
Shot 2: 19ft 6"
Shot 3: 19ft

CCI BR2

Shot 1: 19ft 8"
Shot 2: 19ft 4"
Shot 3: 20ft 1"


YMMV

 

[Greg Langelius *]

PERSONAL OPINION. Oops, accidental cap lock. But, I think the primer is just about the most minor component, but it is not a totally passive component. You will probably see a slight difference when changing primers. I have solved the problem to my satisfaction by using Fed 210M primers almost exclusively. Playing games with primers, seems a waste of time. Pick a primer and develop a load. Nothing can be gained by developing a load and then deciding to try a different primer. Of course, there might be some noticeable difference, but it's backwards, you should START with a primer, not end with a primer. According to my logic, you pick a primer and begin load development. You don't do all your load development and after it's all settled, decide to queer the whole process by changing primers at the last minute. Think about it; would you develop a load, (all the bench and range time) and suddenly decide to switch bullets, just to see if it's "better"? Not in my world.

I will tell you what I "heard" many years ago when the "match primer/benchrest primer" issue came up. Somebody said; the difference was, at the end of a cycle, after a little housekeeping, everything dialed in to specs., they run the lines at half speed for accuracy and charge a premium for those precious "match" primers. It may not amount to a hill of beans but everybody has their MOJO, so even if it is psychological, you are doing everything possible: a feel good, warm fuzzies type of euphoria. Whatever, it can't hurt and we are all suckers for the slightest perceived advantage, and if money will buy that, we will bend over and assume the position.

I'm not worried, it's like the difference between one penny and the next....they are pretty much all the same. So, why decide to use a nickel, instead? Or, a dime; maybe a "magnum" quarter? Whatever. BB

I'm pretty much on that same wavelength. An extra $15/K isn't going to break the bank, so if I can eliminate a potential source of annoyance/concern by simply spending another one point five cents per round, and no other effort; then so be it.

Greg

 

[bruddah]

I am in between AR's. However when there were three in the safe, they did not know the difference between CCI military primers and Russian primers. All they cared about was Hornday bullets and Ram Shot TAC powder.

OK I have a large stash of FGMM primers for the bolt guns but in an AR who cares? I certainly dont feed the AR's Lapua brass...that would be blasphemy.

Most of my ARs will do sub MOA. Some will do less than 1/2 of that. So to me, it matters even in an AR though this post was mainly looking at longer range shooting with a bolt gun such as the .308 I'm going to start loading for. Possibly a .338 down the road.

All info helps.
Well, all GOOD info.

 

[Dacam]

I run Fed 210M and Winchester LR. I have used the 210M for match loads and Win for most everything else.

I honestly have never been able to tell a difference. I agree with those who stated the primer is low on the list of accuracy.

I am not putting him on a pedestal but would be interested to hear Dan Newberry findings on primers.

I have done a little test myself as well. I have a lot of Federal 210 LR primers and Winchester LR primers in addition to Federal 210match primers that I exclusively use.
I wanted to see if I get the same results(groups) with the 210, and Win primers. Im shooting just under 1/2" in my AIAE MKIII with 210m primers.

My informal test showed me that by just switching to the standard Federal primer from the match primer, my 3 round groups opened up slightly to almost 3/4"
The Winchester primers, surprisingly did well also. I don't have pics but I was shocked that they grouped just as well as the 210m primers.

Now this may not be a big deal but I guess in a long range situation, it very well could be. I'll stick to my 210m primers and use the 210 in my plinking rounds.
Take this info for what its worth...not a dam thing cause I really don't know shit....lol

Load 2 155g Scenar
Win cases
46.5 Varget
210m primer
Group size -.618

Load 3 155g Scenar
Win cases
46.7 Varget
210m primer
Group size -.460

Load 4 155g Scenar
Win cases
46.5 Varget
210 primer
Group size -.740

Load 5 155g Scenar
Win case
46.7 Varget
210 primer
Group size - .714

 

[bruddah]

I have done a little test myself as well. I have a lot of Federal 210 LR primers and Winchester LR primers in addition to Federal 210match primers that I exclusively use.
I wanted to see if I get the same results(groups) with the 210, and Win primers. Im shooting just under 1/2" in my AIAE MKIII with 210m primers.

My informal test showed me that by just switching to the standard Federal primer from the match primer, my 3 round groups opened up slightly to almost 3/4"
The Winchester primers, surprisingly did well also. I don't have pics but I was shocked that they grouped just as well as the 210m primers.

Now this may not be a big deal but I guess in a long range situation, it very well could be. I'll stick to my 210m primers and use the 210 in my plinking rounds.
Take this info for what its worth...not a dam thing cause I really don't know shit....lol

Load 2 155g Scenar
Win cases
46.5 Varget
210m primer
Group size -.618

Load 3 155g Scenar
Win cases
46.7 Varget
210m primer
Group size -.460

Load 4 155g Scenar
Win cases
46.5 Varget
210 primer
Group size -.740

Load 5 155g Scenar
Win case
46.7 Varget
210 primer
Group size - .714

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you want to "work up" a load with the different primers instead of just switching them out leaving everything else the same?

 

[Dacam]

Yes, you should work up. Group 1 shows a part of a pressure check.

 

[Rprecision]

I have done a little test myself as well. I have a lot of Federal 210 LR primers and Winchester LR primers in addition to Federal 210match primers that I exclusively use.
I wanted to see if I get the same results(groups) with the 210, and Win primers. Im shooting just under 1/2" in my AIAE MKIII with 210m primers.

My informal test showed me that by just switching to the standard Federal primer from the match primer, my 3 round groups opened up slightly to almost 3/4"
The Winchester primers, surprisingly did well also. I don't have pics but I was shocked that they grouped just as well as the 210m primers.

Now this may not be a big deal but I guess in a long range situation, it very well could be. I'll stick to my 210m primers and use the 210 in my plinking rounds.
Take this info for what its worth...not a dam thing cause I really don't know shit....lol

Load 2 155g Scenar
Win cases
46.5 Varget
210m primer
Group size -.618

Load 3 155g Scenar
Win cases
46.7 Varget
210m primer
Group size -.460

Load 4 155g Scenar
Win cases
46.5 Varget
210 primer
Group size -.740

Load 5 155g Scenar
Win case
46.7 Varget
210 primer
Group size - .714

Interesting results, I have never used the standard 210. The Winchester Primers shooting equally well doesn't surprise me. I have a load in a 22-250 (which is not to far off from .308 size) that uses a Winchester primer which if it do my part will shoot in the .2's

I would be interested to see if reworking the load with a 210 would create a equal shooting load

 

[Mulletboy1618]

All the name brand primers are good Federal, CCI, Winchester, Russians. Weight sort any of the primers to .05 or .02 grains and it will create a difference in group size. I shoot F-TR and it will reduce verticals by about .1 -.2 moa. I use russian/tulammo primers because they have a harder cup which allows you to increase the powder charge. The priming compound has been proven to burn alittle hotter giving better ignition with dense case filling loads. Plus Davis Tubb uses then. Enough said. Also if you have some vertical at 600-1000 yards some of the times you can change primer brands and cure it. What ever primers you use, match or not, weight sorting will knock some numbers off the ES.


Sorting components produces consistent ammunition, but doesn't reduce shooter suck.

 

[blackfoot]

Years back I read in Precision Shooting that the Federal GM primers were done on a separate line from the rest and they had their most experienced/consistent person applying the compound or whatever they do.

I'm of the thought that there are too many variables to really test match vs. regular in the real world, but use the FGMM almost exclusively just for peace of mind.

 

[You-Two]

Not that it proves anything scientifically, but I've noticed two differences between my .308 loads when fired with the CCI BR2 and Win LR primers. This has been with Varget, 4064, and RL15.

1) Lower SD with the CCI BR2. Normally the Win LRs are in the mid-low teens, while the CCI BR2s are sub 10 fps.

2) Higher velocity with the Win LRs. Usually about 10-25 fps difference with the same loads.

This leads me to believe (a) the CCI BR2s are more consitent and (b) the Win LRs are a little hotter. Which I think fits the common perception of these primers. I have about 4K of the Tula LRM primers to try when I get a chance to see how they compare.

 

[Thumper580]

Asked myself this question a hundred times...... Gun shoots great and I swear if you use the "mainstream" primers, CCI, Federal, Winchester or Remington I can't see a noticeable difference. To that point I feel better using top shelf primers...... Probably mainly in my head. The groups don't show a noticeable inference. For what it's worth.

 

[bruddah]

Asked myself this question a hundred times...... Gun shoots great and I swear if you use the "mainstream" primers, CCI, Federal, Winchester or Remington I can't see a noticeable difference. To that point I feel better using top shelf primers...... Probably mainly in my head. The groups don't show a noticeable inference. For what it's worth.

I appreciate the feedback.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

These days, when preferences become largely unobtanium; I use what I can find, usually Winchester or CCI 200/400. They seldom produce clearly primer-attributable misses.

A lot of this is in our heads. We blithely demand the ultimate components for our ammunition, when many (most?) of us are far from being the ultimate riflemen ourselves, and I absolutely do include myself.

It's too easy to blame equipment for a miss. When I miss, I know it's me who's doing the missing. The only rifle I will unswervingly employ match primers with is my .30BR custom match rifle, because I need to be certain that it is me that's doing the missing.

Greg

 

[Mike_P]

My understanding, which seems to be on the same page as most, is that the benchrest primers simply are either the same, or supposedly slightly harder. Depending on the brand I think I believe the harder. But for the most part, I'll just stick with small rifle just based on cost. Not enough of a difference since I'm not competition shooting to matter. But as always, to each their own.

 

[Brutalwarpig]

Somebody posted the it was either the CCI BR's or the Federal Match, I cant remember which, are in reality no different than the regular ones, except for which person was operating the machine. One operator, presumably somebody who has been there a LONG LONG time, does a better, more consistent job, so his primers are match grade, while a new guy simply produces non-match primers. I dont know how true that is, but take it for what its worth.

Match grade primers, in theory, should be more consistent than non-match grade. To me, I dont think I would ever be able to tell the difference. Some of the most consistent primers I have seen from a low ES and SD point of view(which isnt the end all be all of judging a primer) were Wolf and I have a hard time believe they can make "match" anything.

I know the Federal Match and CCI BR's around me are going for 45+ per thousand while regular are at 30. I think I will simply shoot 50% more instead of relying on a "match" primer to give me any better accuracy.

I live in Cookeville TN and I'm fortunate to have Dead Zero Shooting Park less than an hour's drive away. They have a 1000 yard range with electronic (shot marker systems) targets at several different distances including 600 and 1000 yards. Yesterday I took my new Thompson Center Compass in 6.5 Creedmoor out to work on some Berger 140 grain hybrid target loads and I guess I got lucky with my initial loads because at 600 yards I shot three 3 shot groups under 1 m.o.a. with the best being .294 m.o.a. (2.04" pic included) the other 2 were 3.44" and 5.14" out of a $275 rifle. I used Winchester WLR and CCI 200 primers. I've made new loads with Federal Match primers and going back to the range today to see if I can repeat yesterdays results and to try the same loads with match primers. It's going to be hard to beat .294 m.o.a. but I will update with my results.

 

[Steel head]

In the three calibers I shoot I’ve never gained anything from them.
CCI#400, 450 and 200’s are my go to.

 

[LR51]

They are made on the same line with the exact same components simply held to a tighter tolerance

 

[lightman]

I buy CCI-BR, Federal 210M and Remington Small Rifle BR because, as another poster says "it makes me sleep better". But I can't say that I see better groups or scores. I would say go standard if money is tight. It not, go splurge!

 

[coyotewillie]

I can honestly say you'll never see any difference in MY groups between the two. But I still use the match primers because the LGS sells them for virtually the same price.

 

[Brutalwarpig]

I can honestly say you'll never see any difference in MY groups between the two. But I still use the match primers because the LGS sells them for virtually the same price.

I'm actually doing range tests today between CCI200 & CCI-BR-2 primers. Here are pics of a 600 yard group and a 1000 yard group using a Thompson Center Compass 6.5 Creedmoor using the BR2 primers. The first is a 5.30 inch group @ 1000 yards yesterday. The second is a 2.19 inch 3 shot group @ 600 yards and the last is 2.04 inch 3 shot group shot at 600 yards 3 days ago. The second pic was shot with a .308 RPR

 

[D_TROS]

hOlY neCrO thread! 7 yrs. Glad to see people still use search function.


As with any loading component, test to see results. If I have the variety (always Fed 2xxM, BR, and wolf), after load work up Ill do a test with different primers, and always see different group sizes.


GL
DT

 

[RNWRKNP]

Expensive rifle, expensive scope, expensive.....well, everything to get the best performance. For me it doesn’t make sense to pull up at the primer when trying to achieve the best performance for an insignificant savings. For SHTF ammo the best becomes even more important cuz it’s a two way range and it needs to go bang every time. JM2C

 

[Threadcutter308]

Expensive rifle, expensive scope, expensive.....well, everything to get the best performance. For me it doesn’t make sense to pull up at the primer when trying to achieve the best performance for an insignificant savings. For SHTF ammo the best becomes even more important cuz it’s a two way range and it needs to go bang every time. JM2C

Not only that, but @ an average of $0.035 vs $0.050 per primer, std vs match, if I go to the range and fire 50 rounds of 6 x 47L, the BR-4's cost me an extra $0.75 in total. pfffftttt............. I just spent more on my personal time to write this than what the extra cost was worth.

 

[RNWRKNP]

Not only that, but @ an average of $0.035 vs $0.050 per primer, std vs match, if I go to the range and fire 50 rounds of 6 x 47L, the BR-4's cost me an extra $0.75 in total. pfffftttt............. I just spent more on my personal time to write this than what the extra cost was worth.

Exactly so. Pick your brand with a proven performance history and buy the best they have to offer. For me that’s Federal Match across the board and drive on. When times are good I squirel away good components and when their tight I lean on the stash?