^

 

Cheddite are supposed to be just a tad hotter but I found them about the same for all practical purposes and both are hotter than Remington STS primers.

 

been using them for 3 or 4 years and only had a few duds.buy em.jackmitch

 

Over the past 5 or 6 years, I have shot THOUSANDS of the Cheddites. I have found them to be just a bit "hotter" than the Winchesters (as was mentioned), but probably the closest thing to them.

They are actually my favorite primer to use. My "pet" load for 16-yds features the Cheddite, and I still use them for every 200-bird championship event that I reload for. My only issue is their manufacture in France. When France would not support the U.S. effort in Iraq, I vowed to refrain from products known to have their origin there. To this day, I will not drink Grey Goose vodka either, although it is an excellent product.

If you have never shot them, I would recommend giving a try........

 

k80433...my sentiments exactly....to hell with the ungrateful french and all the products they produce!!!!BUY AMERICAN!!!!

 

They are NOT the same as any other primer. To substitute components without data to support it is risky. That said, in light to moderate loads, they should be similar in performance to the Wichester W209 primer. I would NOT use them in any load that develops anything over 9500 psi (NOT LUPS) using the Winchester primer. There is some data out there for loads using the Cheddite primer. There a couple of different Cheddite primers out there. One is the same size as a standard US type 209. The other is a few thousandths larger and can enlarge the primer pockets. I have seen very few of the latter, but they are still around.

 

I used Cheddites and Winchesters interchangeably for about 8 years. I never had a problem with primer size from one to the other, never had a dilemma to suggest one was more or less reliable than the other, and basically treated them as "the same." I did a lot of chronograph work at the time and can say that if one was to examine one test with Cheddites and another with Winchesters, he'd say there is no difference or not enough to measure in velocity. However, I can say that after many sessions with the chronograph, the Cheddite primers DID, in fact, boost velocity by an average of perhaps 5 to 8 fps. A single session would show lows and highs that were similar but several sessions would show a tendency for the Cheddites to be just that little bit faster in averages. So, as well stated in many places, the Cheddites appear to be just "a tad" hotter but many of the sources of loading info will state that they should be considered a straight across replacement to the Winchesters. I wouldn't concern myself unless I was loading shells to maximum pressures with Winchesters and considering switching to the Cheddites....Bob Dodd

 

*

You can hammer this all you want but contrary to some of what's said above, Cheddite primers are not comparable to Winchester primers in burn rate, PSI developed or outside diameter. Cheddite primers in reality are nearly an identical substitute to that of a Federal 209A data, also the Cheddite OD is approximately 3 - 5/10,000 (mills) greater than that of a Winchester primer. Even at only 3 - 5/10,000 (mills) greater OD, the Cheddite primer will swedge out the primer pocket, creating a slip fit for the smaller OD Winchester primer, if used after the installation of a Cheddite.

If fully seated in the primer pocket the Cheddite primers malfunction rate is no greater than that of Winchester, CCI, Federal or Remington but should there be a substantial gap at the parting plane between the primer and the metal around the primer pocket hole, the hard surface of the Cheddite primer will absorb the shock of the firing pen as it seats the primer to its should be depth and this condition results in a misfire. Don’t blame misfires on those Cheddite primers if your machine fails to seat them flush. Other than that, Cheddite primers function in all applications & pressure ranges as good as or better than those primers costing much more.

.

 

Buy'em, you can't beat that price.

 

Several mentioned above that Cheddite primers are "hotter" than Winchester. I am interested in knowing how this was measured?

I am old fashioned. If I am loading Federal hulls, I would only use Federal primers. When I load Winchester hulls, I only use Winchester primers. The confidence I have in my reloads is as important as how the reloads actually function.

Pat Ireland

 

I went to cheddite's from WW209's, because of price (first time). Shot them today intermixed, just to see if I could tell the differance from the 27. Scores were 23-24-23-25. I could not tell the differance.

 

For a particular hull/wad/powder/shot weight combination, brisance is usually measured by the peak chamber pressure the primer develops when it ignites the powder. Since any single primer may react to a change in any of the components, assigning a specific value to any one primer is difficult. Flame front propagation gets involved in this, too, and the whole thing gets very complicated.

I like this article on primer substitution from Tom Armbrust for the depth of information it contains: www.armbrust.acf2.org/primersubs.htm

Morgan

 

If you don't want them, contact me and I will buy them.

 

That link is bad... at least for me the page is not found

 

I pick them up today $10.00 per thousand got 2000 win 209 20.00 per thousand.
6 bags of claybusters aa replacements $5.00 bag of 500.

 

" That link is bad... at least for me the page is not found"

Sorry...forgot the "http://" part; thanks for correcting it!

Morgan

I might also mention, on the subject of primer substitutions, that it's my understanding that Hodgdon has tested and verified that the Nobel Sport 209 primer can be substituted for the Winchester 209 safely because Nobel engineered the primer specifically to exactly duplicate the WW primer's performance.

Morgan

 

Pat, I report my very unscientific remarks about Cheddites being a bit hotter based on the very slight additional average velocity over the Winchesters over multiple comparisons. But, of course, you know and understand the brisance testing that none of us unwashed and ordinary folks can duplicate.<;-).......Bob Dodd

 

BDodd

Velocity is not a reliable indicator for a change in peak chamber pressure. Higher velocity may or may not be the result of increased pressures. The only reliable way to know what the pressure is, would be to actually test the loads with the right equipment. I don't have that stuff hanging around in my basement (yet), but I have been known to send a few shells out for testing. It's sometimes worth the cost, just for the peace of mind.

 

I use RexII powder and the loading data shows virtually no difference in velocity and pressure between WW209 and Ched.209. As for the drivel posted about the size difference....here are some measurements with a calibrated micrometer. The brass colored is the Ched. and the silver is the Win. That should demonstrate the value of the rest of that post.

Buz

a href="http://s32.photobucket.com/albums/d26/mobuzz/?action=view&current=Primers3003.jpg" target="_blank">

</a>

<a href="http://s32.photobucket.com/albums/d26/mobuzz/?action=view&current=Primers3004.jpg" target="_blank">

</a>

<a href="http://s32.photobucket.com/albums/d26/mobuzz/?action=view&current=Primers3006.jpg" target="_blank">

</a>

<a href="http://s32.photobucket.com/albums/d26/mobuzz/?action=view&current=Primers3005.jpg" target="_blank">

</a>

 

Quack Shot, I didn't think I had to say more than "my point is unscientific." You are certainly right. My multiple chronograph runs with the two primers provides a mere suggestion that the Cheddites were adding just a sneaky bit of extra velocity and whether or not it had or did not have more pressure is still a mystery. Thus my warning not to trust the idea that the primers are "essentially the same" if you're loading to max. pressures.;-)....Bob Dodd

 

*

alfermann66 ...... The opinion that I posted above about the Cheddite primers, at one time came from Hodgdon Powder Co and is not my own.

About those pictures you posted of the 1 inch Micrometer that reads in 0.0001"...... We have all seen in a prior post these same pictures and in that post you were asked to include views of the hash marks on the barrel of the Micrometer (this is where the 0.0001" - 0.0009" are determined & included in the not yet whole number viewed in the window) as the reading was taken of the largest OD of both the Winchester and the Cheddite primers but true to form you did not include those views in this post either as you didn’t then. Your Micrometer reads in 0.0001", the window only reads 0.000" up to 1.000", with out views of the hash marks common to the end of the barrel your pictures are nothing more than corrupted data. The numbers in the window of the micrometer have to be centered in the window to be a whole number, if not centered, the hash marks have to be included within the data for it to not to be sprewed data.

The Pictures you posted tell a different story other than the two primers have the same size OD as you claim, those picture don’t lie (as the numbers are not centered or are not the same in each window).

.

 

I aggree 100 percent with lkn4rocks on this one. Everytime I've tried them I had trouble with primer pockets.. It's been over a year since I've tried any. Evidently they work OK for some.... If they work, use them... I know I won't buy anymore...

 

lkn4rocks and johnp, this may come as a flash for you, but loading shotshells is not rocket science and shotshell primers are not precision instruments. Measurements of less than 1/1000th are more than adequate to determine the relative size of primers. Perhaps the zoo would be interested in hiring you boys to pick some nits.

Buz

 

*

alfermann66 ...... My-My, aren't we testy!

Is it, because you were asked for proof that will contradict the data the you have knowingly strewed or is it maybe you just don't understand that 0.0001" thru 0.0009" are not less than 1/1000th of an inch or maybe you don’t understand how to read your own micrometer and maybe you don't understand the difference between the terms slip fit and press fit and the small difference of 0.0000's ” between the two especially related to the ID size of the primer pocket in reference to the OD size of the Primer can make?

It doesn't take rocket science to realize the importance of that small difference between press fit & slip fit, especially when the shooter finds a spent (sometimes even live) primer in the action of his auto/pump shotgun and what caused it after changing brands of primers when he reloads!


.

 

Dang, how many times can we beat this dead horse...and I'm pretty sure those primer pockets are concentric out to +/- .000001…..How the guy was asking a question for real not some TRON-fishing trip…..Grubby…but dam it is funny to read the replys…