1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

WW209-Vs-Cheddite

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by shot410ga, Jun 24, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. shot410ga

    shot410ga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,778
    After changing to cheddite primers from WW209 my standard loads seem to be a little hotter. Maybe a little more recoil. Just a perception on my part. Has anyone else found this to be true? If so maybe I should cut my powder back a half a grain.
     
  2. nailer123

    nailer123 TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    335
    I'm loading 17.5 of clays i use ww209 and cheddite they feel the same to me.the only thing i think they are a little hard to set in the hull.
     
  3. bigclown

    bigclown TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    510
    Same question: switching from Win209 to Cheddite or Wolf...which is most cost effective? Do Wolf or Cheddites cause any problems in seating in Rem STS? Help. Best Regards, Ed
     
  4. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    They are all different primers and will give different results in different loads. If you don't have reliable loading data for the EXACT components you are loading, then you are working with unknowns. Not a great idea, unless you have pressure testing equipment at your disposal. Wolf primers continue to be an unknown. If you'd really like to answer that question, you will need to send some shells out for testing. Downrange and White Laboratories can do that for you as well as a host of other people.

    As far as cost, you can see that for yourself by what they are selling for at your suppliers. There is data for Cheddites, but I have not seen anything published for Wolf. If someone tells you that the Wolf primers can use the same data as Winchesters, do they have data to back that up? It's your life, gun, and well being, so is a few cents per box worth the risk? Substitution of components is risky and not for someone that does not have some knowledge of what they are doing, not to mention the facilities to test them.
     
  5. bigclown

    bigclown TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    510
    Quack Shot, your advise is sound and is well-taken. No, I would never attempt to arbitrarily substitute components - ESPECIALLY Primers. Thanks, Ed
     
  6. BDodd

    BDodd TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,594
    Many tests over the chronograph proved to my satisfaction that Cheddites DID boost velocity a bit but only in the area of 10fps average. Speeds with the Cheddites were within the range of highs and lows with Winchester but more toward the high end thus the higher averages and never felt recoil differences. I loaded 1 oz oand 78 oz with them and NEVER anywhere near max. pressure so I chose to load them as "interchangeable" with the Win. 209s. I would be more conservative if I were inclined to max out the pressure data in recipe books.....breakemall....Bob Dodd
     
  7. Dave P

    Dave P TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,515
    Location:
    Canton, Il.
    If you can feel any difference I'll bet it's from the powder charge being different and not the primer.
     
  8. Andy44

    Andy44 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,262
    I use Cheddite and Wolf primers exclusively in A-A and STS style hulls and I can say they are extremely reliable. As for being hotter than others, maybe....depending on the powder used. My Wolf primed loads seem to have a throatier "bark" than the Cheddites, but in pressure testing, I have found no difference. I use only Federal 209s in Federal hulls as I load these up close to the max for 27 yd and "porch" shooting.
    If your fired primers look "normal" i.e. no flattening, cratering, piercing, then your pressure levels are probably OK. If you see ANY of these conditions, BACK OFF! HTH AndyH
     
  9. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    Andy44

    If you have "reliable" pressure data to go with, you are one step ahead of most. Visual indicators or shotshell primer appearance is certainly not reliable and should NOT be used to assess pressure.

    Without reliable pressure testing, you have no way to know what effect a change in primer will cause. You can guess, but without a good amount of reliable data for the Wolf primers, I wouldn't guess at it. I haven't seen any published data for them to go by. In light pressure loads, you might get away with it. To be sure, you need to have the loads tested for pressure. Velocity is also not a reliable measure for pressure when swapping out different components. A change in primer can cause lower velocity with an increase in pressure, or it can go the other way, or even stay the same. You simply cannot know without testing for pressure. "Recoil" or "Feel" would also be unreliable within most normal bounds.

    There is a fair amount of reliable data available for the Cheddite primers. The original poster didn't give ANY details of the load except for the change in primer. I don't think an answer to his question would be possible or give anything meaningful unless all of the details of the load were given. I would suggest that the load be looked up for both primers and the data compared to see what effect the change had on pressure. If there is no data available, then sending some samples of each load for testing could result in a meaningful answer to his question. If you look at it, it's about as meaningful as "My Car made a noise. What could it be?" Without more to go on, how can you give an answer? What kind of car? What kind of noise? what were you doing when it happened? etc, etc, etc,....

    Just my "Not-So-Humble" opinion on the matter.
     
  10. Andy44

    Andy44 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,262
    Quack Shot wrote "If you have "reliable" pressure data to go with, you are one step ahead of most. Visual indicators or shotshell primer appearance is certainly not reliable and should NOT be used to assess pressure."

    So true...you cannot/should not use visual technique to determine pressure; only presence of high pressure. Since I have access to an Oehler chronograph, I can perform fairly accurate pressure testing in MY particular guns, which I have done a LOT of! I KNOW what MY loads do in MY guns. The "casual" primer testing I have performed has been fairly backed up by the Oehler. Pretty interesting stuff!
    HTH - AndyH
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.