M14 Forum

454bore

Working on some loads for my Springfield M1A NM and was curious what the preference is for primers?

Initially I was planning on using CCI#34's but have come across some postings which indicated issues with high pressure signs despite the powder loads being well below max. A little concerned with slam fires using a standard large rifle primer.

Thanks............

Beavis1971

I have always used Winchester large rifle primers (WLR).

win308

I'm on my last thousand of the old WLR (Winchester nickle plated) and they have worked GREAT in my M-1A using 4895. The newer brass Winchester (non-nickle plated) I have not tried. Did Winchester change the formula on the new primers? If not, Winchester standard rifle primers would be my first choice.

RAMMAC

First you have to be aware of what a slam fire actually is. In a nut shell, a slam fire occurs when the firearm discharges without any action on the part of the shooter. Normally that occurs during chambering because the firing pin uses a floating firing pin design. Some people will argue over the hows and whys of a slam fire but most experts attribute them to either mechanical issues with the receiver, there was a problem with the primer (over sensitive or not seated deep enough), or a combination of all these issues.

The CCI 34 is considered to be a magnum primer as compared to most other standard primers. Magnum, meaning that the amount flame and energy is greater. Magnum primers increase the max pressure of the chamber so if you were using powder charge weights that produced high pressure then the CCI 34 primer could cause over-pressure issues. The advantage of the CCI 34 is that it has a tougher primer cup than most other primers but it is hotter. If you want to use them just don't use high pressure powder charge weights.

Bamban

I've used nothing but CCI 34 in all my M1As and all my gas operated 30 caliber rifles. For a bonus, I have a great load for my 300 WM using CCI 34 after trying five different primers including "match" varieties.

KaribouKidd

The choice of primers depends on the powder used.

I have a lot of W-W 748 ball powder so that is what I use to load .308. The Speer (sister company to CCI) reloading manual recommends the use of magnum primers for 748.

I use CCI 250 large rifle magnum primers with a powder charge 1.5gr. below recommended maximum. No signs of over pressure and excellent accuracy if I do my part.

nf1e@snet.net

CCI#34 work for me.

mineralman55

In over 20 years of reloading I've used the Win LR primers for 95%+ of my loading .30 cal ammo. Never had a problem. Load away.

D308FAM

I assume with my comment that you are aware of the need to seat primers below the case head, etc., to prevent slam fires as above, as has been addressed earlier in this thread.
.....
First, there seems to be no "cut in stone" method to guarantee accuracy merely by choosing a certain primer and sticking it into a load.
In many circumstances I have gotten excellent ballistic uniformity (as defined by low standard deviations and extreme spreads) when "non-match" primers have been used with 308 Winchester loadings. So while it might be worth at least trying a "match" primer just plugging one in won't guarantee a ballistically uniform and accurate (two separate things...) loading.
The above comment about "ball powder and magnum primers" has long been the case. BUT, with certain really new ball powders there is no longer any need for magnum primers in ALL ball powder loadings and I've read they are NOT recommended by the powder manufacturer in at least one case. So let yourself be guided here by what the gunpowder industry and the reloading manuals advise. In the particular case of WW748 in a 308 Win I myself WOULD also use a magnum or equivalent primer (CCI#34).
May I suggest that you load up a few test lots of ammo with everything the same except for the primer and shoot them across a decent chronograph and see both if the ballistic uniformity is decent (low SD's and extreme spreads) and also what the test group on the target looks like with each individual primer. This really should be done first using powders and then with the best potential powder a retest with various primers to see if one works better than another. Beware that really good chronograph uniformity does NOT an excellent grouping load guarantee. Also, if the loading groups really well at short range but has poor ballistic uniformity this will likely show up as significant vertical stringing in particular as the range increases to and past the 600 yard line. When in doubt, do final testing up to the expected range so you KNOW what to expect and are not just hoping that the results at short range will remain constant to longer ranges.
If you keep reloading records and have chronograph data you may well find that certain lot numbers of a particular gunpowder give very uniform results when combined with one certain lot number of primer in a particular cartridge....and you can then "assign" both to one cartridge and one weapon and KNOW you have a good pairing if you need it.
By using a chronograph you can both verify the muzzle velocity you are actually getting and also discover if the loading is really uniform or not.
....
If you get a load that looks really good with the usual 5-10 shot "test groups" I suggest repeating the same loading with the same number of shots you might need to shoot a match (88 shots plus alibies in high powers = maybe 100 rounds?) and see if that loading will remain uniform for the total number of shots you would fire at one time between cleanings. If nothing else, it will take at least 30 shots at one test condition (in terms of loading) to really have good confidence statistically in how your loading will ACTUALLY perform ballistically and also group wise. With barrel cooling, etc., that can make for a long day at the range....but it does give a person time to get to know other shooters and talk shop...which I've never found fault with.
....
The more reasonable costs of relatively decent chronographs today makes it so much less testing needs to be done to identify a potentially acceptable loading. I think they save so much money they pay for themselves if a person shoots enough. This means more time for practice and also use and less time spent chasing "holy grail" load combinations on the loading bench.
I hope you find this to be useful information.

slamfire1

A shooting bud of mine tested ammunition in his new Fowler Krieger barreled M1a with CCI #34's. He thought the pressure indications were due to the newly tested primers and posted a warning on Alabama Shooter's.

He simply used loads he had shot in Douglas barrels. I am 100% convinced his problem was due to those very tight Krieger barrels.

I don't have a good 308 primer to 308 primer comparison, but I would not worry about the differences between CCI #34's and other brands.

If you can't find CCI #34's, buy TULA 7.62, they are advertized as mil spec.

And they shot very well.

I recently ran a test to compare velocities with my standard 30-06 match load of 168 SMK 47.0 grs IMR 4895.

I have lots of 174 FMJBT's, five gallon buckets of LC match brass, so I used those and all the primers I have rolling around the reloading room. Any load I have developed with 174’s is perfectly safe with 168 match bullets.

I do not recommend the use of Federals in Garands, Federals are the most slamfiring primers around, so I am not publishing any federal primer data in my Garand, because someone may think it might be an endorsement of use.

I used the great old WLR nickel plated primers. These were made prior to 1999. Winchester changed their primers in 1999 to make them "more" sensitive and changed the primer color to brass. These brass Winchester primers have thinner cups than the older version I do not recommend their use in Garands/M1a's. I also do not recommend the use of brass WSR as primer piercing in my AR's ate up a handfull of firing pins at loads that never bothered the great old nickel plated WSR.

Tula 7.62 primers were advertized by Graf as equivalent to CCI #34 primers. CCI #34 primers are advertized as being “mil spec” primers by CCI. Mil Spec primers are the only appropriate primers to use in Garands and M1a’s as they are less sensitive than commercial primers and greatly reduce the risk of an out of battery slamfire.

Tula 7.62 and Wolf primers shot very well and I used Tula 7.62 a couple of weeks later in a match.


30-06 Primer Test


Colombian Mauser Match




M1 Garand BMR Receiver Douglas Barrel 1:10 twist

vanagonjon

I have loaded close to 2K rounds with CCI #34 in the past two years and have had no issues. I follow all of the recomended procedures when reloading for the M1A, I have not heard of the #34 being the cause of overpressure without some other variable such as charge weight being suspect. It is all part of a system, be careful, keep notes, etc.

John

KYShooter

I've run a few thousand rounds through my M1A using WLRs and a few hundred using CCI match primers. Never an issue with either.

Rojkoh

Best primer made for an M14 and Garand is the Federal 210M primer. It's what I've used for accuracy ammo since the 70's. Never have had a problem with them. *IF* you actually want a primer that's able to put up with the abuse that a military primer can, go with Winchester Primers. They are not sensitive as most others. All my "ball" type ammo is Winchester primed, everything else has 210M primers. DO NOT purchase the 215 primers, they're magnum and there's no rational reason to use them.

Rojkoh

Nope, not one word of any changes to the Winchester primer mixture.

Rojkoh

Great post, the Federal 215s join the ranks as a Magnum primer and a mistake for use in a M14 type or a Garand. Interesting note about the mechanical issues regarding the M1A, for some time in the early 80's, Genesco was having problems with their receiver bridges. It was causing slam fires since I witnessed several of these and I personally checked the ammo (ball in most cases, in 2 cases the ammo was taken apart and double checked). It was the receivers. Easy fix tho. PS, if you want, I can post the history of 4895 which makes it trickier to use since the mid 70's. Pressure curves are very different then the classic IMR 4895. I have talked to Sierra about this when I was back tracking their testing methods for the last reloading manual.