I was told they just changed the name from PMC to Wolf, it's made in Russia I think, I have used about 5000-209s so far & no problems I am in Ga. so it doesn't get too cold here, don't know how they would be with "0" temps. I have no problem with size as can go back to Rems. & they are still tight. I do load a very light load only 7\8 in 12 ga. with low chamber pressure so if they did raise the pressure a little I don't think they would create a dangerous load, have read here on TS by other posters that they were similar to Wins. Some friends like the Wolf 22 LR match ammo. they buy it by the case. just my experience.--Ross Puls
Used 15k of them in last two years; no problems in temps down to teen's. First bought them when they were $85/5000! I reloaded moderate loads and used them like Winchester primers with absolutely no problems. I'm buy them again if I could find them and if they weren't priced higher than the Cheddites I'm using now.
Thanks to Chris for pointing out Tom Ambrust website. The approach and way the data is presented is excellent..not based on empirical information but rather in sound engineering approach. I agree with Chris go to http://www.armbrust.acf2.org/ website and read the reloading articles. Changing primers is not a matter of saving but also of safety..let the experts be the ones to test them.
You might want to check this recent thread on the subject. Mash the link above.
There is no data published for these primers. There is then, no way to know what they will do regarding pressures an any given load, unless you have the facilities to test them for pressure. The alternative is to send some loads out for velocity and pressure testing. PMC Primers were manufacturered by the Poogsan conglomerate in South Korea in either one of two different manufacturing plants. Where are the Wolf primers manufacturered? I don't see the connection between Wolf and PMC primers, except that they are primers.
When substituting primers, or any component, there can be three outcomes regarding pressure. The pressure can increase, decrease, or stay the same. without ANY reliable data to go by, just what will they do in the load you are using. My advice was to start with a low pressure load and hope that you have enough headroom to allow for a dramatic increase in pressure if there is one. You just don't know what they will do unless you test them. Some recent communications that some posters had with the powder companies alleged that these primers are not consistent. It was thought that the statement could mean from lot to lot. So good luck if you test one lot and then buy another later on.
Another myth about powder companies not publishing loads near the redline. Powder companies publish loads that were tested to be within maximum pressures with the EXACT components tested. Change anything and you are on your own. A simple primer substitution can put the load well over the redline.
Now a simple discussion about why pressures might matter. I'm not too concerned about the box of loads that were fired developing 1000 PSI or so over the maximum recommended pressures. How many boxes does an average Trapshooter fire over the course of a year? Ten Years? I've seen some mention of some people having 20,000 or 40,000 of these unknown primers. Let's take a worst case scenario. Load up 25,000 shells for a years worth of shooting. Let's say the load increases pressures by 2500 PSI under laboratory conditions. Take that same load out into 95 - 100 degree weather. How much more pressure will that load develop? Think about what 25,000 moderately over pressure loads could do to a firearm. Do that for a few years. Let's say 50,000 rounds. Could it cause damage to the firearm? Would you notice the damage right away?
Let's not take my word for the fact that repetitive overloaded shells could do damage to a firearm. Let's see what the experts say about it. Below I'm going to provide three links to some documentation at HP White Laboratories. The first will have a discussion of firearm failures. The second, pretty much the same, but describing the testing scenario. The third is more about the terminology they use to describe failures and other events. A thorough reading of even just the first document should give you an idea of why one should be concerned about pressure and doing such things like substituting components where you have no idea of what the results would be.
<a href="http://www.hpwhite.com/uploads/file/100-00.pdf" target="_blank">Small Arms Safety Examination and Test Procedures</a>
<a href="http://www.hpwhite.com/uploads/file/103-00.pdf" target="_blank">Glossary of Gun Malfunctions</a>
Let's say that substituting an unknown primer into the mix would give you a 1/3 chance of increasing pressures. I don't think I'd like to take those chances starting with a load that is near maximum to begin with.
There were many references made by several people about the "velocity" being the same, so some conclusion was made that therefore the "pressures" must be the same. I just have a real problem with that line of thought and I gave a few references in that last thread to illustrate that pressures can vary widely while velocities don't change all that much. You simply cannot compare pressures by measuring velocity when changing components. You need to have pressure testing facilities to make that comparison. My Chronographs don't measure pressures and I doubt there are many of us that have the facilities to measure pressures.
Should I trust that the Auto manufacturers build cars that will not go faster than the speed limits, allow me to take a corner way too fast and crash, not bother applying my brakes so I don't slam the car stopped at the light in front of me, etc? There is a certain amount of common sense and basic knowledge needed to stay out of trouble while driving a car. Same goes for the practice of reloading ammunition. I won't EVER take it for granted that anyone would publish reloading data that would be safe no matter what you change. Somewhere I seem to remember reading a whole bunch of stuff about data being valid only for the components and conditions they were tested with.
I provided several links and references in a previous thread. I don't recall seeing ANY reference to Wolf primers in the Tom Armbrust articles I previously posted links to. I also have not seen ANY reference to Wolf primers in the Lyman Shotshell Loading Manuals I mentioned as well. There simply is no reliable published data that I have seen for the Wolf primers. That's the issue, plain and simple.
As a result, the recommendation to substitute them into a load developing low enough pressures to allow for sufficient headroom in case there is a significant rise in pressure is prudent and just plain common sense.
If the primer fits I use it, if the wad fits I use it, if the crimp looks good I pull the trigger. Am I on the right path? HMB PS. PMC primers are made in Russia, they are a subsidiary of Wolf who purchased them a few years ago. They are a top quality primer. HMB
Check the link above about PMC. I believe they are too busy keeping up with military contracts that they don't seem to care about the commercial market. Where is there a reference to support your claim that PMC has been aquired by Wolf and manufactures PMC Primers in Russia? I'd like to see the details.
Which box, the PMC or Wolf primers? Everything I've looked at that was manufactured or supplied by Wolf said it was a product of Russia. That doesn't mean anything except I haven't seen it. Most of the Wolf stuff is made at the Tula manufacturing facility in Russia(See the link above), although they have been known to farm it out to other facilities and purchase components from other manufacturers. I've just never seen anything about PMC or Poonsang being aquired by Wolf. Part of the "inconsistencies" that were mentioned about Wolf primers could very well be that they are manufactured by a variety of companies under contract, or at different facilities. It's just a theory with no fact to back it up, but it is a possibility.
Tom has a copyright on his data so I will AGAIN post up the link to the data he has provided.
The wolf is a very safe primer that is as good or better than winchester. Anyone got any to sale?
I cannot get his link to be direct here for some reason. Typing in the above will enlighten many here if they take the time to read it.Of course if you have your mind made up with no data to support your opinion don't look for any to change it.
I don't see Wolf primers listed in those articles anywhere. Am I missing something, or are you reading something into these that isn't there?
Once you are done there, read the discussions on primer substitutions in either of the two latest Lyman Shotshell Manuals. Pay careful attention to their recommendations about the substitution of primers and the interpretation of the data they supplied.
If you remember, my original issue was a statement you made about velocity being an indicator that "pressures" would be safe since the velocities were similar. Nothing has been referenced to support your statement. These articles show that pressures can vary quite a bit while velocities may not change by much. That's my original problem with what you stated in the other thread. There was no reference to pressure data or testing to support the claim that the Wolf primer is "cooler", or even what the term "cooler" means? One is led to believe it's a reference to pressure, since most discussions about primers would sound like that. Here's what you wrote:
"Subject: Wolf Primer Data?
Date: Sat, Dec 25, 2010 - 09:07 AM ET
I have around 40K wolf's now. I have chronoed all the gauges with my loads. The wolf is a slightly cooler primer than a winchester with a nominal drop in fps with the same powder charge. Inconsistent? I haven't seen it myself shooting over a chronograph. If you want to see inconsistent run some Nobel Sports through one which I use also with no real world bad results. The wolf is the most direct replacement for the winchester I have seen. Although a cooler primer I sue them in any gauge except 410 where I am seeking to gain the most velocity I can. I occasionally use them in practice in 410 with good results. After using the wolf one can easily go back to winchesters with NO primer pocket distortion. Noble Sports tend to slightly stretch primer pockets but appear to be about the same in the burn rate. Inconsistent though. Cheddites EAT firing pins. Fiocchi's are slightly hot and I had pierced primers using them on a K 80 where I have NEVER experienced that on any other primer brand.
In the end they all go bang. I will continue to use the wolf until I run out. I still have wolf's I gave 75 bucks a sleeve for.....I just bought a sleeve of winchesters for 150......They are not worth the additional cost."