Author Topic: 209 primer preference? (Read 1370 times)

RandyWakeman · « **on:** December 17, 2003, 06:07:13 PM »

For those in-line shooters that use 209 shotshell primers, is there a brand that is more reliable for you? Less reliable? All pretty much the same?

Dutch/AL · « **Reply #1 on:** December 17, 2003, 06:14:16 PM »

Randy, I've been using CCI brand primers and have never had a misfire, knock on wood. Er, I mean knock on composite.

Triple Se7en · « **Reply #2 on:** December 18, 2003, 02:25:16 PM »

I agree with Dutch... the regular CCI 209 primers work the best for me. Because of their lessened firepower, you have to look closely at the spent ones because they look darn-near perfectly new when you remove the fired one. The only difference is the absence of the colored red center. They stay intact with the action open, increased my accuracy (1/2" average) and eliminated my seized ramrod upon swabbing the hardened 777 fouling.

RandyWakeman · « **Reply #3 on:** December 18, 2003, 04:14:04 PM »

FWIW,

There is no accuracy difference I can detect by brand, including 209-4 Remington .410 primers. The Federal 209A's have not resulted in any misfires, in any standard inlines-- the others have, so I've stuck with Federals for that primary reason.

Oldsnow · « **Reply #4 on:** December 18, 2003, 04:23:38 PM »

Randy I prefer useing Remington 209-4 primers. I was haveing problems wish flyers from my Oncore and Omega with standard 209 primers. As you know the Remington 209-4 primers are not as hot as standard 209 primers. I have shot well over 300 rounds this year useing Remington 209-4 primers with out any flyers or missfires.

RandyWakeman · « **Reply #5 on:** December 18, 2003, 04:31:01 PM »

They are certainly good for open-actioned guns, with loose powder-- a lot less primer blowback. They won't reliably set off pellets in Knight red-plastic jacket rifles, or any rifle with a long breechplug that I've tried them in.

More than a few folks have reported "flyer reduction" with the .22 Hornet conversion or .410 primers, I don't doubt it. In the Encore here, though, there is just no change with the .22 Hornet conversion or .410 primers-- for whatever reason.

Oldsnow · « **Reply #6 on:** December 18, 2003, 05:53:52 PM »

It's a lot cheeper to buy a box of Remington 209-4 primers and try them. Then it is to pay $70. for a 22 Hornet conversion. And who knows with out trying the 209-4's mite work just as well.

RandyWakeman · « **Reply #7 on:** December 18, 2003, 06:15:19 PM »

I think you're right, as far as any accuracy improvement.

The thing that the .22 Hornet certainly does do is prevent internal blowback into the action, but that has not been a problem for me, either. It seems that varies from gun-to-gun.

Old Cane · « **Reply #8 on:** December 19, 2003, 02:35:42 PM »

Am I missing out? I've only tried Winchester. I always used CCi for handgun reloads.

RandyWakeman · « **Reply #9 on:** December 19, 2003, 02:39:44 PM »

I doubt it, unless you are having problems. I tested most brands because I "was testing them"-- and I've always reloaded shotshells, anyway.

TCAS · « **Reply #10 on:** December 19, 2003, 02:42:56 PM »

The hornet case does seen to catch a lot of crud. I clean my cases with a 22 caliber wire brush then tumble in walnut nut media breifly for a nice clean case.

I don't mind the extra work as I'm a gadget freak and will try just about any new product and give it a run. In my gun the hornet case works with hot loads 110-120g and no measurable difference in group size with 90-100g loads of pyrodex or 777 loose powder ofcourse.

TCAS

Omega · « **Reply #11 on:** December 19, 2003, 03:32:38 PM »

I shoot winchester, gives some people fits but since I started handloading in 69 I've loved their components.

brownsfan · « **Reply #12 on:** December 19, 2003, 04:17:33 PM »

Does anyone know if switching between 209 primer brands can cause a "noticeable effect" on point of impact?

sheephunterab · « **Reply #13 on:** December 20, 2003, 06:26:07 AM »

Quote

Does anyone know if switching between 209 primer brands can cause a "noticeable effect" on point of impact?

No it does not. I usually use Federal 209A primers but if I can't get them, I've used Winchester and CCI and the Omega shoots the same place with all of them.

Bullseye · « **Reply #14 on:** December 20, 2003, 10:41:42 AM »

Is see one poster mentioned the infamous crud ring was less with the CCI. Anyone else have experience with this? I use Winchester and have a terrible crud ring with 777. Would switch if it would help.

woodseye · « **Reply #15 on:** December 21, 2003, 04:28:12 AM »

I'm using Remingtons.........not for any real reason other than its all my local gunshop had in stock when I rushed in to buy them :-) If I had a choice I would opt for CCI as they preform so well in my CF's and I have a lot of faith in them. Oh well next time :wink:

woods

RandyWakeman · « **Reply #16 on:** December 21, 2003, 04:35:41 AM »

Quote from: Bullseye

Anyone else have experience with this? I use Winchester and have a terrible crud ring with 777. Would switch if it would help.

Doubtful. Underclocked 'invented" the crud ring, but I have no problems with it here at all-- in testing 30 odd guns.

I use Breakfree CLP as my bore protectant, maybe that has something with do with it?

Triple Se7en · « **Reply #17 on:** December 21, 2003, 02:05:43 PM »

"I use Breakfree CLP as my bore protectant, maybe that has something with do with it?"
=============================================

Crud rings and Clod clumps!

If you're using Breakfree CLP as a rifle-storing bore protectant with sidelocks, be sure to store your rifle with the rifle upside down or remove the nipple & cleanout screw first when using 777 FF powder. My two Traditions sidelocks have (2) ninety degree turns in the flash channel & CLP remnants in combination with 777 powder fouling will create hang/misfires if your patches are wet instead of damp.

I purposely bought the spray can of Breakfree to avoid over-use on a patch, but the nozzle spray pattern comes out in a narrow, heavy pattern. I then stuck the entire "pressed" nozzle in an empty spray bottle to create a wide, thin spray pattern.

Then I took Randy's "soft fouling" theory to the next level. I figured since Lehigh Valley Lube worked good in the dual role of a bore protectant and Lehigh Spit Patch, I will try CLP as a bore swab every 2nd shot. Ouch! No fire again.

So in retrospect, Breakfree works well with inlines even with a moderate dose as a protectant and light dose as a bore swab.... but not with Traditions side-hammers. 777 fouling with CLP may alleviate crud rings with most inlines ... but 777 fouling with CLP forms clod clumps that block the firing channels in some sidelocks.

jh45gun · « **Reply #18 on:** December 22, 2003, 12:32:48 AM »

I have the NEF that uses the plastic primer holder. the first primers I had were the French ones being sold in the yellow box If I had known they were french when I bought them I would have never used them. Forget the exact name I think it was cheddite? They worked fine no misfires but really stuck in the holders tight. the next box I bought were the Winchester 209's and they work fine easy to extract from the holders and sure fire. Jim