Use only published data from reliable sources. Hodgdon and Alliant both have some data for the Fiocchi 616 Primers. Check www.hodgdon.com and www.alliantpowder.com. Look for links to the reloading data. It is NOT acceptable to just swap components without any regard to pressures. Those that say you can swap the Fiocchi for the Winchester are playing with fire. Just take a look at the pressures for Clays powder in loads for the STS and AA hulls. There is a marked difference between pressures with Win 209 and Fiocchi 616 primers. Some are in LUPS and some in PSI, but you can get a good idea looking at the data that the direct substitution of one for the other could put pressures over the top. It may take thousands of over pressure rounds, but it could cause issues with your firearm, some of which might be a catastrophic failure caused by repetitive stress fatigue of the metal parts. Those that tell you they have shot THOUSANDS of them with no trouble are just tempting fate.
Quack shot has been the primer police for a while now. he is only trying to make it safe.
BUT.... You can substitute Win 209 for Fio 616 no problem. Hodgson and Allient guys both said it. Call yourself and ask them.
If you are not loading Max pressure loads BEFORE the switch, I have no problem substituting any 209 for another. Then again I am shooting weenie 2-3/4 drammer loads and have checked Fed. numbers as they are the hottest. If its ok to load that many grains with a Fed primer, its ok to use a Win, Rem, Rio, PMC, Fio, Ched, etc...
I still HAVE some balls. Didn't lose them to a blown up K-80 yet. Disregarding safety is a foolish practice. It is, however, a possible alternative to suffering from old age.
You can do as you please. I just don't wish to be standing nearby when the results of your folly become evident.
There is NO excuse for disregarding safety, especially when there is reliable data available. Look at Hodgdon's data for Win AA and Remington STS hulls for Clays powder. There is a drastic difference in pressures between the two primers mentioned, Winchester and Fiocchi 616, especially with 1 1/8 oz loads.
HP White labs also apprently agrees that it is the stress of repetitive events that cause metal fatigue, and eventually a catastrophic failure. The effects of an over pressure load may not show up for several thousand rounds or more. This has all been hashed out here before, ad nauseum. If you desire to take such chances, please wear a label prominently stating "Stand Clear" "Dumb Reloader", so people will know to stay clear. It's a clear disregard for your fellow shooter's safety and well being, as well as your own.
Big Al 29:
Some forethought and the use of reliable data would be prudent. As you stated, using data for the hottest primer listed, while using loads that develop less than maximum pressures, should be reasonable. Just swapping components without such forethought is what I caution against.
By the way, I also belong to the Pizza and Bagel police. I'm rather picky about those items also.
Quackie, I've missed your posts...knew you'd be on this one unless you took up golf or something. Show me one drastic result that has occurred with a primer switch and 12 g. target loads and I'll be a believer. (authenticated incident, not hearsay and no tempting fate retoric) mike b.
Ah yes... Ole QuackShot to the rescue on the incredible, and fictional, danger and explosive situation that will occur when you use a Fiocchi 616 in place of a Winchester 209. You would think he would have tired of the same repetive jibberish by now considered NOT A SINGLE PERSON, GUN OR OTHERWISE HAS EVER BEEN HARMED BY SWAPPING A WINCHESTER 209 WITH A FIOCCHI 616.
Tom Armbrust just had a post on his site comparing some pressure differences with different primers. At least he technically pressure tested the two and stated his data without repeating a generic warning to all.
This is also testing that DownRange did with Winchester and Fiocchi:
Once fired Rem STS Greens.
shell temp 48.6
Win 209 primer
18.5 Red Dot
7/8 oz shot
ADV. VEL. 1279 / ADV. PRESS. 8680
shell temp 48.6
18.5 Red Dot
ADV. VEL 1254 / ADV. PRESS. 7485
Same everything. Only the primer was changed. All powder was scaled to 18.5 (0 +-)
Crimp depth adv. .055.
Quacky me lad; I have through velocity testing ascertained that F616 primers are indeed softer than W209. Same load and hull w/ trap loads 35-55 fps difference with W209 faster. I have been loading since 1958 with only one incident. (the first shell I ever loaded) I used the dram measurement on the scoop and one double barrel ruined. FD
I called Hodgdon to ask about information for 700X and switching between Fed209a and Fiocchi primers. The guy I talked to stated that they hadn't tested that powder yet, but with my loads, 17.5 grains, one ounce shot, claybuster wads & STS hulls, I don't need to worry about it.
He did tell me that Fiocchis didn't like cold weather. I don't like shooting in cold weather either. I'll probaby be OK.
If there is even a remote chance that something could happen because you switched primers why would you do it? We expect these things to be tested ad nauseum, but in reality is it worth the risk no matter how miniscule? Would you put that gun with those loads into the hands of your child?
Let me know who you are on the line, I don't want to be standing next to you should something go wrong, regardless of how remote the chance.
There are apparently at least two ways to keep an idiot busy for hours:
1. Put him in a perfectly round room and tell him to find the penny in the corner.
2. Submit a post in a trapshooting forum that contains common sense and good advice about reloading and safety.
Sorry that this reply took a little while, but some of us (me) actually go out and shoot trap on occasion, rather than stay home and post reckless advice and personal attacks on trapshooting forums. It’s entertaining to see just how careless some people might be about their reloading practices! Well, maybe I'm not "really" sorry, but I'll just leave it at that. In the meantime, here's to urinating in someone's cornflakes!
Some people apparently need to be reminded of some simple and basic reloading safety considerations. It is not prudent to substitute ANY components, unless you know exactly what effect such a substitution will have on pressures. There are generally three possibilities:
1. The pressure may increase.
2. The pressure may decrease
3. The pressure may stay the same
Which one will it be? Roll the dice? Take a chance? Insist that it would decrease or stay the same because that’s the way you want it to be? Play Russian Roulette and hope there’s no loaded round under the hammer? Step right up and be the first one on YOUR block to destroy your K-80 in 25,000 rounds or less!
FarmerD, Pay close attention to the following:
Unless you have reliable data or reasonably sophisticated pressure testing apparatus, you cannot be sure just what the results of such a component substitution will be. The velocity of the ejecta is absolutely NOT a reliable indicator of pressure in such instances as you claimed. You can increase pressure and have a reduction in velocity or decrease pressure and realize a gain in velocity. There is no reliable way to correlate pressure vs. velocity when changing components. In many cases, increased pressure would result in an increase in velocity, but that might only apply if identical components were used. If any change in any component(s)were made, then the reliability of pressure vs. velocity comparisons are seriously compromised. In other words, your claimed velocity tests don't mean crap!
SshooterZ, Here’s some for you:
Some powders like Red Dot and Green Dot may actually see a reduction in pressures when substituting the Fiocchi 616 for the Winchester W209. There is reliable data on the Alliant Powder Website to support that and I don’t need data from Downrange or Tom Armbrust to know that. Some powders like Clays appear to have a different result when using the Fiocchi 616 instead of the Winchester W209. The Fiocchi 616 primer appears to increase the pressures drastically in many loads when using Clays in STS or Win AA hulls. These are some instances where there is reliable data available. Making substitutions where no reliable data is available is reckless and there is no excuse for compromising your own safety as well as that of other shooters and innocent bystanders. Tom Armbrust did not include the Fiocchi 616 primer in his data either. You might also notice a marked increase in pressure for his RIO primer data using Clays powder. It's not quite near maximum, but the powder charge is also not the maximum listed for the Winchester primer either.
There also appears to some data from Downrange, which appears to be mostly copied and pasted from the powder manufacturers, located here: http://members.cox.net/omahasportingsupply/drmfg_booklet.pdf I would give Kevin at Downrange the benefit of the doubt, that the data has been verified as accurate.
Look at the following data from Hodgdon’s that reflects a dramatic INCREASE in pressures due to the substitution of Fiocchi 616 primers for the Winchester W209:
12 GA., 2 3/4", WINCHESTER COMPRESSION-FORMED AA TYPE SHELLS
Imagine what the pressure might be if the maximum load listed for the Winchester W209 primer were to be used with the Fiocchi 616 primer. It would probably be at, or well over the recommended pressure limits for 12ga. We are talking around two grains of powder above the maximum listed load for this powder using the Fiocchi 616 primer. Indeed, the pressure may not be enough to cause a catastrophic failure on the first or a single firing, but it could certainly be high enough to cause a failure after many such rounds had been fired. I will now document the background on such failures, so try to hold your water.
mike b., pay attention:
HP White Laboratories has made available several documents discussing the failures of firearms due to over pressure loads and other causes. I will provide the URLs and discussions as follows:
Look at section "f" from page 6 and especially section "h" on page 7 of the "Small Arms Safety Examination and Test Procedures" document located at http://www.hpwhite.com/100-00.pdf
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank">
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank">
Now take a look at the next document, "Excessive Pressure Test", page 1, sections 1.4 and 1.5, located at http://www.hpwhite.com/101-00.pdf
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank">
Simply stated, there have been many catastrophic failures of shotguns reported. The number of instances where careless reloading practices are the root cause, including careless component substitutions, is an unknown. Many of these incidents involved firearms that were used with reloaded ammunition and such improperly reloaded ammunition just cannot simply be ruled out. There have been several incidences of catastrophic failures reported right here on TS.com, and I seem to remember some of these reports stated that reloaded ammunition was used. I would strongly suspect that the reloads were the clue. The fact that the shooter was using the same reload for years could certainly be the problem.
According to the HP White Labs documentation, it does not always require loads that are well over maximum recommended pressures to cause failures. Even loads that are at, or near, the maximum can cause failures if enough of them have been fired.
Here is another URL to an interesting discussion on swapping components and the resulting data, recently sent to me by a friend. It also lists some useful information on maximum pressures. http://fort-myers-beach.com/miscellaneous/Component_Swapping_Pressure-Velocity_Tests.htm
My intention and previous statements is simply a reminder to be cautious when deviating from reliable data. All we need is for some “Anti” organization to find an instance where someone was injured due to the careless practices of some reloader. I’m sure they would try to make it nearly impossible or illegal to buy components or to produce reloaded ammunition. It would just enable another backdoor attempt at gun control and some serious impositions on lawful firearm owners. Every firearms related “accident” is fuel to their fire. We also don’t need someone buying a used and abused firearm and having a failure due to the carelessness of its previous owner. Just because you have used a load for a while without any incident is no indicator that it is developing safe pressures. See the HP White discussions above for more details on that subject.
If someone from a powder or other company suggests that one primer can be “safely” be substituted for another in "ALL" instances, without knowing the specifics of the load involved, or having reliable test data to support it, it’s a serious disservice to their customers.
In no way did I say you could NOT substitute primers or other components. I have strongly suggested using caution and reliable data if, or when, doing so. To save a few pennies and jeopardize safety is reckless indeed. To suggest and recommend that someone else with little or no experience should do that is even more reckless. People post a question here in good faith and you give them reckless advice? Some of you should hang your heads in shame.
Just ask the cardiac patient exactly which "super cardiac express" quadruple cheeseburger or triple sized bag of greasy cheezy fries caused his heart failure, or the lung cancer patient just exactly which cigarette caused his cancer. The answers should be "The first one". The consumption of many thousands more would be the cause, but it started somewhere. The first one was where a line was crossed and a blatent disregard for common sense and personal well being had been started. They survived the first, second, and third ones. They then survived a few hundred. That lack of immediate negative effect provided a false sense of security allowing those behaviors to continue. Will they survive many thousands more? Only time would tell. It's almost the same thing with a firearm when using improperly or carelessly loaded ammunition. You may have trouble, or you may not. Why tempt fate?
If any of you (mike b.) feel a strong need to prove me wrong, feel free to provide HP White Laboratories, or a qualified lab of your choice, several brand new and unfired typical trap guns and a sufficient supply of the loads I described above using Clays powder, plus your credit card and/or bank info. I'd like to see their results. I'm already satisfied that I have good and correct information.
Quackshot, I appreciate the time you invested in your reply. I will check your sourcing and report back on the next primer substitution post. I have been doing my own gun testing over the last 30 years and all are still fine.