Primal rights cps

I figured most would not switch but is anyone going to buy the Hornady over primal rights. Yes it is a knock off but it is $400 cheaper at $299 msrp. The extra money could be put into components.
The question could be asked is the primal rights that much better then the Hornady marketing hype and versa prime?
Dumb question or not is the primal rights feature set better than the Hornady versa prime?
 
Your first question was would someone sell to buy the the Hornady. No.
If one already has the Primal, why would they go through the hassle of selling it and buyer something that does the same thing just to switch? There would not be any money to buy components doing this.
If someone does not have a Primal, then I would image folks will definelty look at the Hornady.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mj30wilson900
Your first question was would someone sell to buy the the Hornady. No.
If one already has the Primal, why would they go through the hassle of selling it and buyer something that does the same thing just to switch? There would not be any money to buy components doing this.
If someone does not have a Primal, then I would image folks will definelty look at the Hornady.
All has to do with money I guess. Could sell primal and put extra on components but it would be more hassle I agree. For those who bought the primal early they probably could sell it for a profit right now.
Do you think this will have a big impact on the primal rights sales?
Do you think primal rights will look to lower the cost of the unit?
 
Who would buy a used Primal for $300 or more when you could buy the knock off new for that money? Point being, the seller of a Primal could not sell it for enough to buy a Hormnady and have money left for any components. Just look at the Lab Radar when Garmin came on the market. You practically had to give them away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mj30wilson900
Who would buy a used Primal for $300 or more when you could buy the knock off new for that money? Point being, the seller of a Primal could not sell it for enough to buy a Hormnady and have money left for any components. Just look at the Lab Radar when Garmin came on the market. You practically had to give them away.
Just saying those who bought a primal for 5-600 can sell it for $650 and buy a Hornady for $250 and put the rest on components.
 
Just saying those who bought a primal for 5-600 can sell it for $650 and buy a Hornady for $250 and put the rest on components.
IMG_1299.jpeg

Arguing over a few hundred bucks in this sport is comedy.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1299.jpeg
    IMG_1299.jpeg
    189.9 KB · Views: 1
Who would buy a used Primal for $300 or more when you could buy the knock off new for that money? Point being, the seller of a Primal could not sell it for enough to buy a Hormnady and have money left for any components. Just look at the Lab Radar when Garmin came on the market. You practically had to give them away.

This isn't electronics.
Used Primal units so for very close to new prices
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jrb572
Why anyone is using an adjustable primer seater is beyond me. Can anyone show me ANY evidence that these devices make ammo more accurate? Anyone?

Primers are to be seated until they bottom out in the primer pocket. That's how the primer manufacturers design them. Save your money and just get a primer seater that seats primers the way the manufacturers want them. Them spend your extra money on components.
 
Why anyone is using an adjustable primer seater is beyond me. Can anyone show me ANY evidence that these devices make ammo more accurate? Anyone?

Primers are to be seated until they bottom out in the primer pocket. That's how the primer manufacturers design them. Save your money and just get a primer seater that seats primers the way the manufacturers want them. Them spend your extra money on components.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you are missing the point about repeatable primer crush with adjustable hard stop like CPS and a few others.

Of course the issue of varying rim thickness for tools that indicate off of the top of the primer can be an issue for the seriously OCD...but, there have been posts in this site where people did test different degrees of crush and did (if I remember correctly) find ES/SD variations from doing so.

I've been interested in the Lyman auto-feed primer because its adjustable stop indicates from the bottom of the rim and if your pockets are uniform this should give you the same degree of crush every time.

But its out of stock everywhere (and I wonder if that's indicative of an issue with the design) and I have seen references to people not being able to get the primer below flush due to the shell holder's hole being too small for the primer tool's ram. I understand that some shell holders (Hornady for example) have larger holes and work with the Lyman.

Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jingoist
So this is the primer tool Hornady's making a copy of?
I'll say it again....yeah, its bench mounted, its square, it has a lever, and it seats primers.....THAT is the similarity.

IMO, people saying that they are ripping off the CPS just seem have to have something about Hornady to whine about.
 
Primer "crush". Why would you want to crush the primer any amount? If so, how much is too much? Do the primer manufacturers recommend crushing a primer? Do winning benchrest shooters "crush" their primers?
lol . . . "crush" is a word that simply doesn't explain what one is trying to explain. It really is a poor word to use as some people will hear that and have a very exaggerated mental image of what that is.

It's a little easier to understand if one says something like ".003 crush" or "006 crush" as it at least gives some idea of what one is trying to do. It really has to do with pushing the anvil into the cup and making its interaction with the primer compound more consistent when the firing pin strikes the primer. It's not about "crushing" the primer's cup itself, it's about the anvil.

And yes, primer manufacturers do recommend a "crush" when seating primers. Though I don't think they recommend how far as it'll depend on the various primer size (but I feel like I have heard they suggest .003"???).

And yes, benchrest shooters do "crush" their primers. . . AND, they're very particular about the strength of their firing pin spring and how consistent it stays for striking the primer. ;)

I like to do .003 to .004" of "crush" when seating and have to do a little calculating how to get that by measuring the primer pockets depths and the height of the primers. That way when I measure how far below flush the primer is, I get a good idea how much "crush" I'm getting.

Precision shooting is ALL about consistency for everything involved.
 
Last edited:
Primer "crush". Why would you want to crush the primer any amount? If so, how much is too much? Do the primer manufacturers recommend crushing a primer? Do winning benchrest shooters "crush" their primers?
The forum has a search function, ya know. Right there in the upper right corner.

All of those questions and more have been discussed and debated numerous times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herb Stoner
Use a primer pocket uniformer and the depth of the pocket will determine how much below flush the primer surface will be. If the primer is seated more than this then you are "crushing" the primer. If the primer manufacturers wanted the primer seated deeper they would design the primer to accommodate this. But they don't. Loaders can spend their money anyway they want and if buying these adjustable seaters make them feel better, so be it. Again, I have yet to see any evidence of this making ammo more accurate.

Spending money on wind flags would be a much better investment and would result in tighter groups.
 
Use a primer pocket uniformer and the depth of the pocket will determine how much below flush the primer surface will be. If the primer is seated more than this then you are "crushing" the primer. If the primer manufacturers wanted the primer seated deeper they would design the primer to accommodate this. But they don't. Loaders can spend their money anyway they want and if buying these adjustable seaters make them feel better, so be it. Again, I have yet to see any evidence of this making ammo more accurate.

Spending money on wind flags would be a much better investment and would result in tighter groups.
"more accurate"??? Hmmm??? Are you confusing accuracy with precision?

Primer heights (including which includes the anvil) varies from one manufacturer to another as does primer pocket depth. In some cases, you can seat a primer .003 below flush and not even be touching or anywhere near the bottom of the primer pocket. Some primers have anvils that sit higher in the cup than others. So, there's a lot of variation that occurs from one brand of primer to another.
 
Last edited:
Use a primer pocket uniformer and the depth of the pocket will determine how much below flush the primer surface will be.
Have you measured anvil legs/cups recently?

Measure a dozen and report how many show ~ 0.002-3" variation from primer to primer. I'd rather crush the legs and ensure > 100% bottomed out than let my firing pin seat the primer properly before ignition. :)
 
Primer "crush". Why would you want to crush the primer any amount? If so, how much is too much? Do the primer manufacturers recommend crushing a primer? Do winning benchrest shooters "crush" their primers?
Call CCI, they will tell you .002 crush is recommended. It ensures the anvil is set against the primer compound for consistent ignition. It does improve SDs.
 
If the primer is not seated so the cup is against the bottom of the pocket, some of the energy of the firing pin will be used to complete the primer seating process. This "might" result in a misfire or erratic ignition. But if the primer is seated so the cup is bottomed out in the pocket the anvil is seated as much as it's going to be. If you seat the primer more then you will be "crushing" the cup and I'm sure they were not designed to be crushed.
 
Call CCI, they will tell you .002 crush is recommended. It ensures the anvil is set against the primer compound for consistent ignition. It does improve SDs.
Yes, sir...and another added benefit is that when you pre-sensitize the primer, it will ignite before the firing pin stops traveling (and disturbs the rifle 0.009") :)

I like to prime my primers for all the reasons mentioned in this thread.
 
Call CCI, they will tell you .002 crush is recommended. It ensures the anvil is set against the primer compound for consistent ignition. It does improve SDs.
If that's the case, then CCI has designed THEIR primers to be seated .002" below flush. But if that's the case, why don't they tell you that .002" below flush is recommended?

BTW, with all the load testing I have done, low ES/SD doesn't always correspond with a good group. That being said, I will believe the group size when determining what load to use.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jingoist
If the primer is not seated so the cup is against the bottom of the pocket, some of the energy of the firing pin will be used to complete the primer seating process. This "might" result in a misfire or erratic ignition. But if the primer is seated so the cup is bottomed out in the pocket the anvil is seated as much as it's going to be. If you seat the primer more then you will be "crushing" the cup and I'm sure they were not designed to be crushed.
:ROFLMAO:

You sound sure about even the manufacturing and design of primers, so I'll back out, as I am not worthy...and won't even bring up the 0.009" group the guy who "crushed" what would later become called the BR-4 primer.

Most benchrest guys crush my feel...hand primers...to the point where they feel the legs crush, then a little more...sorry you disagree with this approach, sir. I suspect you don't shoot 0s and 1s, though, given your disregard for ignition. Good luck with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baron23
Yes, sir...and another added benefit is that when you pre-sensitize the primer, it will ignite before the firing pin stops traveling (and disturbs the rifle 0.009") :)

I like to prime my primers for all the reasons mentioned in this thread.
That's why the anvil protrudes out of the cup. This "per-sensitizing" (as you call it) is built into the primer at the factory.
 
If that's the case, then CCI has designed THEIR primers to be seated .002" below flush. But if that's the case, why don't they tell you that .002" below flush is recommended?

BTW, with all the load testing I have done, low ES/SD doesn't always correspond with a good group. That being said, I will believe the group size when determining what load to use.
You do not understand what we are talking about. .002 below case head is not crush. Folks have provided video links on the subject, which you obviously have not looked at. Most brass manufacturers are anywhere from .003 to .005 below case head to accomplish a .002 crush. You have to measure the primer pocket and primer and do the math.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jingoist
:ROFLMAO:

You sound sure about even the manufacturing and design of primers, so I'll back out, as I am not worthy...and won't even bring up the 0.009" group the guy who "crushed" what would later become called the BR-4 primer.

Most benchrest guys crush my feel...hand primers...to the point where they feel the legs crush, then a little more...sorry you disagree with this approach, sir. I suspect you don't shoot 0s and 1s, though, given your disregard for ignition. Good luck with that.
Not claiming to be an expert but I do know a little bit about primers. I would have no problem buying one of the adjustable primer seaters (cost not being an issue) if there was proof that they worked. But I haven't seen any such proof. And yes, I have shot 0s and1s.
 
If the primer is not seated so the cup is against the bottom of the pocket, some of the energy of the firing pin will be used to complete the primer seating process. This "might" result in a misfire or erratic ignition. But if the primer is seated so the cup is bottomed out in the pocket the anvil is seated as much as it's going to be. If you seat the primer more then you will be "crushing" the cup and I'm sure they were not designed to be crushed.
That’s not what is referred to when talking about primer crush as has been explained to you in at least 5 posts above.

Now you’re just being defensively argumentative.
 
If that's the case, then CCI has designed THEIR primers to be seated .002" below flush. But if that's the case, why don't they tell you that .002" below flush is recommended?

BTW, with all the load testing I have done, low ES/SD doesn't always correspond with a good group. That being said, I will believe the group size when determining what load to use.
WTF… can you actually read. .002 of “crush” does NOT fucking mean .002” below flush.

Depends on the depth of your pocket and the overall height of the brand of primers used.

You’re just blowing crap out of your arse now. 🙄
 
lol . . . "crush" is a word that simply doesn't explain what one is trying to explain. It really is a poor word to use as some people will hear that and have a very exaggerated mental image of what that is.

It's a little easier to understand if one says something like ".003 crush" or "006 crush" as it at least gives some idea of what one is trying to do. It really has to do with pushing the anvil into the cup and making its interaction with the primer compound more consistent when the firing pin strikes the primer. It's not about "crushing" the primer's cup itself, it's about the anvil.

And yes, primer manufacturers do recommend a "crush" when seating primers. Though I don't think they recommend how far as it'll depend on the various primer size (but I feel like I have heard they suggest .003"???).

And yes, benchrest shooters do "crush" their primers. . . AND, they're very particular about the strength of their firing pin spring and how consistent it stays for striking the primer. ;)

I like to do .003 to .004" of "crush" when seating and have to do a little calculating how to get that by measuring the primer pockets depths and the height of the primers. That way when I measure how far below flush the primer is, I get a good idea how much "crush" I'm getting.

Precision shooting is ALL about consistency for everything involved.
Dang, learn something new everyday. Thanks!
 
OK . . . so here some numbers that shows what kind of variations there can be:

CCI LRP cup height: .118"
Fed 210 cup height .117"

My CCI 200 primer height: .127"
My Fed 210 primer height: .129"

My Lapua LRP pocket depth: .130"
My ADG LRP pocket depth: .125"
My Peterson LRP pocket depth: .129"
My Starline LRP pocket depth: .121"

Go figure! ;)
 
Primer "crush". Why would you want to crush the primer any amount? If so, how much is too much? Do the primer manufacturers recommend crushing a primer? Do winning benchrest shooters "crush" their primers?
Easy folks.

As a matter of fact, if the primer anvil protrudes above the cup, then the answer is yes the design is intended to be "consolidated" or what the forum calls "crush". (ETA: typically about 0.004" to 0.006")

1760996930547.png


If the anvil is flush to the cup, then the intent is to bottom them.

And the answer to the question of does it matter to performance and can evidence be produced, again the answer is yes.

Poor primer installation is a known contributor to accuracy problems, and when primers are properly installed they are not the issue, however poorly constructed testing is not going to make these facts go away.

A test with Buba's rifle and loads isn't going to have the noise floor required to demonstrate much, so there are probably plenty of examples of poorly constructed tests that would be easy to find. However, it also doesn't take much effort to search these threads or the many YT videos that show the effects on groups and speeds.

Now, I agree folks that are not privy to industry performance testing of primers should also be given that insight directly from the industry but we don't expect them to change their stance. They don't publish this material and there is nothing to be done about it on this forum.

Not trying to call you out, and my apologies for replying by quoting your post, but if rookies read here they can be mislead when they hear this too many times. Your avatar shows you as USAF or I wouldn't even bother to pitch in here, so I hope you forgive the correction.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: straightshooter1
OK . . . so here some numbers that shows what kind of variations there can be:

CCI LRP cup height: .118"
Fed 210 cup height .117"

My CCI 200 primer height: .127"
My Fed 210 primer height: .129"

My Lapua LRP pocket depth: .130"
My ADG LRP pocket depth: .125"
My Peterson LRP pocket depth: .129"
My Starline LRP pocket depth: .121"

Go figure! ;)
...and the variance between the primers in each respective box is just as prevalent.

So one seats that 0.118" CCI three thou below flush in a 0.121" pocket and think they are at touch...until the next one is 0.115" from the same box and the firing pin is shoving shit forward (thereby decelerating and dicking up the timing)...sometimes.

"Sometimes" and "Might" are not things I would want in my ammo boxes. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: straightshooter1
...can't tell you how much I compress the anvil (OPSEC :ROFLMAO:), but here's what SAAMI suggests is max seating depth below the case head.

(Just posting for those who think CCI is doing it wrong and that we should just seat them flush and let the firing spring do all the work).


1761002505541.png