Hey all where can I get info on the differance between WINCHESTER 209 AND Remington 209p primers??? I have almost 5k win 209 but the powder that I had to switch to does not have vary many recipes for winchester 209. Thanks the powder was Clays now its American select Joel
winchester 209 vs remington 209p
warbux
- Status
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Hey all where can I get info on the differance between WINCHESTER 209 AND Remington 209p primers??? I have almost 5k win 209 but the powder that I had to switch to does not have vary many recipes for winchester 209. Thanks the powder was Clays now its American select Joel
Joined
·
210 Posts
Hi,Try the powder company web site to get load data for your components;they list more recipes then what most manuals have.In my experience the Rem and Winchester primers can be interchanged for powder weight but the pressures and velocities will change slightly.
I don't what you guys are smokin but it must be some mighty good stuff. You take a remington hull and primer with 18.8 grains of clays and a AA12 wad and you are at 10,300 lups. Now switch to a Winchester 209 primer and you are over 11,000 psi and almost 1/2 grains over maximum load. Switch to American Select and load down a little with a Remington primer and you would be just fine, however, Alliant doesn't even suggest a Winchester 209 recipe.
By the way under certain conditions, you can swap Federal 209 and Winchester 209 primers, like using Red or Green Dot in a trap load using a Federal Hull according to Don Zutz in his book Shotgun Stuff.
By the way under certain conditions, you can swap Federal 209 and Winchester 209 primers, like using Red or Green Dot in a trap load using a Federal Hull according to Don Zutz in his book Shotgun Stuff.
Joined
·
17,216 Posts
I suggest to contact the powder company and get a load they have tested. On some loads with Clays (hodgdon) told me on a load they had with rem primers only that I could use a Win. primer but to back off .5 ths of a grain on powder for the load. As Win. primers are a bit hotter than the Rem.s on most loads. Better check it out. Good Luck and Break-em all. Jeff
Joined
·
3,995 Posts
straightshooter1
I'd be suspect of ANYONE that would give you the green light to swap around with primers without certain conditions and cautions. There are clearly some wide variations between some primers in most loads. Swapping components is risky and a crap shoot at best. It's best to stick with established data, or use some common sense and extreme caution when swapping primers. At the very least, you should start out with the data for the "hottest" primer listed. You should also be careful to select starting data with low enough pressures to provide some headroom for variations and error.
If there is any question, you might consider sending out a sample for pressure and velocity testing. It's a lot cheaper than a new gun and personal injury lawsuits.
I'd be suspect of ANYONE that would give you the green light to swap around with primers without certain conditions and cautions. There are clearly some wide variations between some primers in most loads. Swapping components is risky and a crap shoot at best. It's best to stick with established data, or use some common sense and extreme caution when swapping primers. At the very least, you should start out with the data for the "hottest" primer listed. You should also be careful to select starting data with low enough pressures to provide some headroom for variations and error.
If there is any question, you might consider sending out a sample for pressure and velocity testing. It's a lot cheaper than a new gun and personal injury lawsuits.
Hey guys, in order to prove a point, define hotter. There are three distinct methods that primers ignite: by the amount of heat, by volume of hot gas expelled and by the insertion of burning metal particles into the main charge. All three types of primers are avaiable today. The difference is the rate at which the primer ignites the main charge and the rate that the main charge burns and that develops pressure.
As I mentioned in another thread, a guy walked off the trap line last year with a Fox double in 5 pieces. No one was injured. But he couldn't remember what he loaded or how. My gunsmith told me a half a grain over max puts a great stress on your the gun and it may not break the first time, but that stressed gun part doesn't go away. It just fails sometime in the future.
As I mentioned in another thread, a guy walked off the trap line last year with a Fox double in 5 pieces. No one was injured. But he couldn't remember what he loaded or how. My gunsmith told me a half a grain over max puts a great stress on your the gun and it may not break the first time, but that stressed gun part doesn't go away. It just fails sometime in the future.
Joined
·
3,995 Posts
straightshooter1
Suspect isn't a strong enough word. Your "advice" has now changed to exclude primers other than Remington, Winchester, and possibly CCI 209s? If you really need to figure it out, look at the data they have provided and see for yourself. If using light enough loads (Pressure Wise), swapping primers might not be an issue, but if someone makes a BLANKET statement that you can simply swap whatever primers you want in any given load, I'd call it "suspect" and be polite about it. Swapping primers can have an unpredictable effect on pressures in many loads. Looking at Hodgdon's own data for the Fiocchi 616 primer, it goes from very hot to very mild, depending on the powder and other components. With some loads with Clays powder, the data shows them to be close to the Federal 209A. In others, they are pretty tame compared to even the Remington 209. My opinion is that you would be playing with fire if you were to swap primers around without reliable data to support it.
Go through the data currently available from Alliant and you'll see different combinations that are not always consistent with what you expect to see.
I take safety very seriously. If someone makes a statement that could get someone in trouble, I'll challenge it. Your first statement was one in that category. You even mentioned a primer that doesn't exist. You are playing with things that go BANG, and have the ability to do harm. I'd want to be sure that I would be doing what I need to do, in order to be as safe as possible. I also would be VERY careful about any advice I give to someone in the same regard.
It certainly sounds like you have Federal Primers and CCI mixed up. CCI has a 209M. Federal has a 209A currently, and an older Federal 209 that has been discontinued. In light of this, I'd be even more careful about what you might have "heard" during your conversations. Confusion is a bad thing when reloading ANY ammo.
Suspect isn't a strong enough word. Your "advice" has now changed to exclude primers other than Remington, Winchester, and possibly CCI 209s? If you really need to figure it out, look at the data they have provided and see for yourself. If using light enough loads (Pressure Wise), swapping primers might not be an issue, but if someone makes a BLANKET statement that you can simply swap whatever primers you want in any given load, I'd call it "suspect" and be polite about it. Swapping primers can have an unpredictable effect on pressures in many loads. Looking at Hodgdon's own data for the Fiocchi 616 primer, it goes from very hot to very mild, depending on the powder and other components. With some loads with Clays powder, the data shows them to be close to the Federal 209A. In others, they are pretty tame compared to even the Remington 209. My opinion is that you would be playing with fire if you were to swap primers around without reliable data to support it.
Go through the data currently available from Alliant and you'll see different combinations that are not always consistent with what you expect to see.
I take safety very seriously. If someone makes a statement that could get someone in trouble, I'll challenge it. Your first statement was one in that category. You even mentioned a primer that doesn't exist. You are playing with things that go BANG, and have the ability to do harm. I'd want to be sure that I would be doing what I need to do, in order to be as safe as possible. I also would be VERY careful about any advice I give to someone in the same regard.
It certainly sounds like you have Federal Primers and CCI mixed up. CCI has a 209M. Federal has a 209A currently, and an older Federal 209 that has been discontinued. In light of this, I'd be even more careful about what you might have "heard" during your conversations. Confusion is a bad thing when reloading ANY ammo.
Joined
·
3,995 Posts
Any time someone makes a statement that you can simply swap primers without any regard for pressures or consequences, I always ask for the data they based that statement on. In loads producing around 8000 PSI or less, you might get away with swapping any primer. With loads in the 10,000 PSI range, you'd be a fool. Tom Armbrust posted an article (link above) about primers and patterns, with a good comparison of a number of primers. The most important thing to take away from the article is that primer substitutions are NOT PREDICTABLE. His warning is simple.....Don't do it! The RIO G600 is sometimes a mystery, but the limited data I have seen puts it in the same category as the Federal 209A and CCI 209M. It appears to produce some rather high pressures. It's intent was for use in large capacity straight walled hulls with single based powders that tend to be hard to ignite. Other "bargain" primers are an unknown, since very little data is published, if any.
The CCI Primers that were discontinued were the CCI 209SC and the CCI 209 T&S, earlier on. CCI currently manufactures two shotshell primers for retail sales. They are the standard 209 and the 209M, which is intended for use with magnum loads. Federal discontinued the 209 and replaced it with the hotter 209A. All notations and warnings I have seen advise against using data for other primers, except for the Nobel Sport, which Hodgdon says THEIR data for the Winchester 209 would be compatible.
Some people have made statements like "I fired a couple of boxes and everything worked OK" or "They seem good to me!". That's a dumb thing to do, since most damage is done over a period of time by shooting over pressure loads on a regular basis. According to HP White Labs, the accumulated stresses on a firearm can cause fatigue over time and result in an eventual catastrophic failure. How many thousands of your "pet" loads would it take to destroy a gun? When will it fail? Maybe the shell you fired when it blew up was not the one that caused the failure. Could it have been the ten thousand high pressure loads you fired in it last year when you swapped some components since you couldn't get what was listed in the data, or got a real deal on some primers?
I like my firearms, my well being, and fellow shooters. I refuse to put them at risk by doing stupid things and perpetuating BAD advice.
The CCI Primers that were discontinued were the CCI 209SC and the CCI 209 T&S, earlier on. CCI currently manufactures two shotshell primers for retail sales. They are the standard 209 and the 209M, which is intended for use with magnum loads. Federal discontinued the 209 and replaced it with the hotter 209A. All notations and warnings I have seen advise against using data for other primers, except for the Nobel Sport, which Hodgdon says THEIR data for the Winchester 209 would be compatible.
Some people have made statements like "I fired a couple of boxes and everything worked OK" or "They seem good to me!". That's a dumb thing to do, since most damage is done over a period of time by shooting over pressure loads on a regular basis. According to HP White Labs, the accumulated stresses on a firearm can cause fatigue over time and result in an eventual catastrophic failure. How many thousands of your "pet" loads would it take to destroy a gun? When will it fail? Maybe the shell you fired when it blew up was not the one that caused the failure. Could it have been the ten thousand high pressure loads you fired in it last year when you swapped some components since you couldn't get what was listed in the data, or got a real deal on some primers?
I like my firearms, my well being, and fellow shooters. I refuse to put them at risk by doing stupid things and perpetuating BAD advice.
Joined
·
6,479 Posts
This might be a smidge off-topic, but has anyone ever proven to themselves that primer choice can affect felt recoil? In other words, do loads with Federal primers generate more felt recoil than loads using Remington primers?
Hopefully, I'm going to find out Thursday evening. I'm loading 50 shells with each primer and will shoot them to see if I notice any difference. I know the powder charge should be increased a little with Remington primers but I'm going to load these 100 shells with the same powder charge just to isolate the primer's influence on the recoil.
Ed
Hopefully, I'm going to find out Thursday evening. I'm loading 50 shells with each primer and will shoot them to see if I notice any difference. I know the powder charge should be increased a little with Remington primers but I'm going to load these 100 shells with the same powder charge just to isolate the primer's influence on the recoil.
Ed
I have always interchanged primers by what is on sale at the time of purchase between Winchester, Remington and Fiocchi. I don't do this with hot loads but with target loads. I haven't blown up so far. Out of curiosity, if you chronographed the load and were getting the same speed with the same amount powder does that indicate that the primers are close enough? Does a hotter primer require less powder?
Joined
·
6,479 Posts
The answer to your last question is yes - most loading manuals list charges 0.5 to 1.0 grain lower with Federal primers, which are hotter than most others. Also, I think that Fiocchi is one of the imported primers that is slightly larger in diameter than American-made 209s. If so, they can enlargen primer pockets enough that other normal-sized primers fit loosely and can even fall out.
Ed
Ed
warbux, American Select is very sensitive to primers. You simply cannot substitute a W209 for an STS209 without concern. A W209 almost always generates more pressure than an STS209. With Red Dot, Green Dot e3 is is not so much. With Amer El, it is a lot.
Here is an example using my handicap load. Data is straight off the Alliant manual. STS hull, W209 primer, 18.5gr Am Sel, Fig-8, 1 1/8oz shot, generating 1145fps @9000psi.
The matching load using an STS209 primer calls for 1/2gr more powder, bumping the charge to 19gr. The speed is still listed at 1145fps @7600PSI. Directly substituting a W209 primer in this published load would result in more velocity, and an almost 2,000PSI increase.
You don't say what load you are looking for, so call Alliant and ask what they think. They have data on way more loads than they publish. So they may have tried it and it didn't meet their standards.
Here is an example using my handicap load. Data is straight off the Alliant manual. STS hull, W209 primer, 18.5gr Am Sel, Fig-8, 1 1/8oz shot, generating 1145fps @9000psi.
The matching load using an STS209 primer calls for 1/2gr more powder, bumping the charge to 19gr. The speed is still listed at 1145fps @7600PSI. Directly substituting a W209 primer in this published load would result in more velocity, and an almost 2,000PSI increase.
You don't say what load you are looking for, so call Alliant and ask what they think. They have data on way more loads than they publish. So they may have tried it and it didn't meet their standards.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
- Status
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
