Anyone Using Benchrest Grade Primers?

[Danehunter]

Hand loaders always try to eliminate variables when reloading.

Bench rest grade primers are supposed to give a more uniform flash pattern and therefore more uniform ignition of the powder charge.

Anybody found this to be true for hunting rifles?

Eric B.

 

[FearNoWind]

I've been relying on CCI BR2 and BR4 primers for several years and have never found any reason to switch. Started using the BR4 in smaller caliber benchrest competition and chose the BR2 when I moved to long range high power competition. Still using them.

 

[Deleted member 46119]

Tried them in my falling block 45/70. Peep sights Sub-MOA at 100 yards.

Use them in other things as well.

 

[Rich Coyle]

I use them like any other primer. When I work up a load with a large primer pocket I use Federal 2215 Magnum. Once I get the load the last thing I do is load five of that load with all the primers I have. Normally there will be one or two worth checking again with another five shot group.

When I work with small primer I start with CCI BR-4 and follow the above procedure.

Different guns and different loads prefer different primers. I have not seen one come out on top regularly.

 

[J E Custom]

Hand loaders always try to eliminate variables when reloading.

Bench rest grade primers are supposed to give a more uniform flash pattern and therefore more uniform ignition of the powder charge.

Anybody found this to be true for hunting rifles?

Eric B.

I have tried them In most of my rifles and found them to improve the SDs more than accuracy, and in some other rifles they improved the accuracy Buy an average of .020 thousandths over other primers.

They seem to do the most good in cartridges that hold less than 60 or 70 grains of powder. all of my 308 based cartridges have benefited from the CCI Br2 primers both in SDs and group size.
Slower burning powders don't seem to benefit much if any.

One of my most accurate rifles went from a .077 5 shot group to a .053 and from a SD of 7 to an SD of 4. I know it doesn't sound like much, but when you stretch the distance out past 500 yards it really makes a difference in consistent accuracy.

I feel they do improve some cartridges but not all. the only way to find out is to test them in your rifle with your pet load.

J E CUSTOM

 

[newmexkid]

I've been relying on CCI BR2 and BR4 primers for several years and have never found any reason to switch. Started using the BR4 in smaller caliber benchrest competition and chose the BR2 when I moved to long range high power competition. Still using them.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Mikecr]

I doubt merchandising without evidence associated with the qualifiers.
And I'm sure there are a mountain of factors to consider with any attempt to predict 'best' for a system..

Either optimize striking and load for a chosen primer, or swap them for best results. The latter has not consistently led me to Match or BR over other standard or magnums. It just hasn't.
Sometimes I end up using russian, or Win/Rem primers, or std Feds/CCIs.
In other words, it's still an abstract.

 

[Danehunter]

JE Custom,

I'm reloading 6.5 Creedmoor for my Ruger Precision rifle so yes , taking your advice I definitely will begin to use benchrest primers. Normally I would use my regular Federal primers but this rifle shoots so well with Hornady factory 140 gr. ELD-M cartridges that I am going for every bit of consistency I can get.

I will be trimming cases with a new Wilson/Sinclair micrometer trimmer, using Redding Precision 3 die set and a few other totally anal reloading habits I've learned over the years.

I have several hundred Hornady 6.5 CM cases, not the worst cases in the world, but after I run through them in a year or two I'll switch to Norma cases & the small rifle primers (benchrest, natch) that they require. Supposedly the Norma brass is much more consistent in volume. We'll see if they produce better results as I transition into them. And by that time I'll also have "transitioned" into a Proof Research barrel. I hope it is as good as the Ruger barrel I lucked into. Who knew Ruger could produce such barrels? Well, yeah, I did NECO fire lap it but it's still an amazing barrel.

Eric B.

 

[Greyfox]

I have always used the Federal and CCI benchrest primers in both large and small sizes. During the drought when availability was a major problem I did a lot of accuracy, velocity, and ES testing with my 6.6x284's, 260 , 6mmAR, 223, and 300 WM comparing my results with the standard counterparts. I found no difference in accuracy, ES, and velocity. All of these rifles are .2-.4MOA, with ES <10. Now that availability is back, I still use the benchrest versions because of habit and insurance reasons, but I know that in a pinch, I can substitute.

 

[Greyfox]

JE Custom,

I'm reloading 6.5 Creedmoor for my Ruger Precision rifle so yes , taking your advice I definitely will begin to use benchrest primers. Normally I would use my regular Federal primers but this rifle shoots so well with Hornady factory 140 gr. ELD-M cartridges that I am going for every bit of consistency I can get.

I will be trimming cases with a new Wilson/Sinclair micrometer trimmer, using Redding Precision 3 die set and a few other totally anal reloading habits I've learned over the years.

I have several hundred Hornady 6.5 CM cases, not the worst cases in the world, but after I run through them in a year or two I'll switch to Norma cases & the small rifle primers (benchrest, natch) that they require. Supposedly the Norma brass is much more consistent in volume. We'll see if they produce better results as I transition into them. And by that time I'll also have "transitioned" into a Proof Research barrel. I hope it is as good as the Ruger barrel I lucked into. Who knew Ruger could produce such barrels? Well, yeah, I did NECO fire lap it but it's still an amazing barrel.

Eric B.

I also have a recently acquired Gen 2, Ruger PR in 6.5CM. Like yours, it is exceptionally accurate, even with factory 140 Hornady ELD Match. It can easily stand with my customs when it comes to accuracy. I have tested loads with Hornady, Lapua(this I'd the small primer type), and Norma(large primer). No question, the Lapua and Norma brass is more consistent in case weight and volume. They also have about 1 grain less capacity then the Hornsdy brass. Interestingly, I have found that ultimate accuracy and ES is not much different comparing all three brands. Actual velocity can vary between the brands due to the difference in case capacity. The primer pockets have stayed tight on the Hornsdy brass for 10+ reloads. I have decided to stick with the Hornady brass, the major reason being the case capacity. My most accurate and consistent load uses a 100% case capacity of H4831sc. I achieve higher velocity with the added case capacity of the Hornady brass and can keep SD under 10. I also like H4350 which can come very close to my results with H4831sc with less concern for case capacity but wanted a back-up powder because of the very poor availability of H4350. The temperature stability of H4831sc seems comparable to H4350. Both are Hogdon "Extreme" powders. While a I have experienced no pressure signs with H4831sc, I would still start 1 grain less then my loads shown below. All my loads for this rifle use Fed210M primers. As a side note, I found that my Ruger PR's barrel settled in 30-40FPS higher velocity after about 200 rounds. It has held there since at my current 500+ rounds. I also wonder how long this great barrel will last!

The left group shot at about 150 rounds, the right 300 rounds.

 

[J E Custom]

JE Custom,

I'm reloading 6.5 Creedmoor for my Ruger Precision rifle so yes , taking your advice I definitely will begin to use benchrest primers. Normally I would use my regular Federal primers but this rifle shoots so well with Hornady factory 140 gr. ELD-M cartridges that I am going for every bit of consistency I can get.

I will be trimming cases with a new Wilson/Sinclair micrometer trimmer, using Redding Precision 3 die set and a few other totally anal reloading habits I've learned over the years.

I have several hundred Hornady 6.5 CM cases, not the worst cases in the world, but after I run through them in a year or two I'll switch to Norma cases & the small rifle primers (benchrest, natch) that they require. Supposedly the Norma brass is much more consistent in volume. We'll see if they produce better results as I transition into them. And by that time I'll also have "transitioned" into a Proof Research barrel. I hope it is as good as the Ruger barrel I lucked into. Who knew Ruger could produce such barrels? Well, yeah, I did NECO fire lap it but it's still an amazing barrel.

Eric B.

When I first got into the "Bench rest primer thing" I probably though if they are bench rest they have to be better. But after testing/comparing primers, I did see a slight advantage in some rifles.

Curiosity led me to read as much as I could find on them. There was a lot of talk about the quality control being better, cup thickness and hardness being different, different primer sealant and many other things that I could not prove so testing loads with a good chronograph was about all I could do with any degree of confidence.

I even jockeyed the powder charge of the pet loads up and down just to make sure that the volume and burn rate was not making the difference. In some cartridges, there was a definite improvement in SDs and accuracy. With some powders the SDs were better and with the other powders the groups were measurably better if only a few thousandths. (When I measure groups I use a magnifying glass and take 4 different readings and use the largest reading for record just to be sure).

As stated earlier, the cartridges that BR-2 and 4 primers seemed to have the most effect/improvements on were the cartridges with a case capacity of Between 30 and 50 grains of powder. The 210 and 215 M's seem to have the most effect on larger magnum cartridges with 60 + grains capacity. I was surprised to find out that the 215 m primer was hotter than the 215. but it made sense for shooting huge doses of slow burning powder.

I can't tell anyone the reason that they work in some cases but the quality control part makes the most sense to me. But testing is the only sure way to find out if they are better in your rifles than Standard primers.

Just more comments

J E CUSTOM

 

[Greyfox]

When I first got into the "Bench rest primer thing" I probably though if they are bench rest they have to be better. But after testing/comparing primers, I did see a slight advantage in some rifles.

Curiosity led me to read as much as I could find on them. There was a lot of talk about the quality control being better, cup thickness and hardness being different, different primer sealant and many other things that I could not prove so testing loads with a good chronograph was about all I could do with any degree of confidence.

I even jockeyed the powder charge of the pet loads up and down just to make sure that the volume and burn rate was not making the difference. In some cartridges, there was a definite improvement in SDs and accuracy. With some powders the SDs were better and with the other powders the groups were measurably better if only a few thousandths. (When I measure groups I use a magnifying glass and take 4 different readings and use the largest reading for record just to be sure).

As stated earlier, the cartridges that BR-2 and 4 primers seemed to have the most effect/improvements on were the cartridges with a case capacity of Between 30 and 50 grains of powder. The 210 and 215 M's seem to have the most effect on larger magnum cartridges with 60 + grains capacity. I was surprised to find out that the 215 m primer was hotter than the 215. but it made sense for shooting huge doses of slow burning powder.

I can't tell anyone the reason that they work in some cases but the quality control part makes the most sense to me. But testing is the only sure way to find out if they are better in your rifles than Standard primers.

Just more comments

J E CUSTOM

It's interesting that there have been explanations of the differences from special, more controlled chemical and production processes to just simple visual sorting. It would be great if CCI or Federal would validate the difference other then "match grade".

 

[Mikecr]

It would be great if CCI or Federal would validate the difference other then "match grade".

If they actually did, it would be a big deal. They would be experts all about that, and there would be a huge telling of it. After all, a good truth is always easy to sell.
Otherwise, it doesn't take that much for us to make up our own beliefs -based on what we want.
Add 'Match' or 'BR' or a simple 'X' to a model and watch merchandising101 play out..

 

[Danehunter]

The more I learn (about hand loading) the more I realize I don't know. But I learn a lot here and on the "6.5 Creedmoor Forum". And in both forums we speak in civil terms even when we disagree and I greatly appreciate that.

For PRS competition I often hear that I don't need the Nth degree accuracy of bench rest shooters - that is until I get out past 800 yards - then I do need it.

I'm retired and have the time and patience (I've been married 49 years so have learned patience ;o) to do the best loads I can. That includes using HBN bullet and barrel coating, precision bullet seating for a consistent COAL, culling out way over and under weight cases, and, one of these days soon, buying an annealer to get more loads from my brass. So as I progress in this fine madness I'll hopefully find "a point of diminishing returns", where anal retentiveness at some point does not equal smaller groups. The day I begin lusting to measure bullet runout is the day I'll know I've reached that point.
Hell, I even have a Neil Jones precision gauge for sorting .22 LR and .22 WMR rim thickness into lots. Rim thickness = headspace in rimfire rounds and they do group differently due to this slight headspace difference. So, yes, I can get anal about shooting, even rimfire.

Eric B.