Primer data & accuracy
Printed From: Enfield-Rifles.com
Category: Reloading
Forum Name: Reloading .303 British
Forum Description: Enfield-Rifles.com accepts NO responsibility for any loads that may be used by persons reading this forum. USE CAUTION WHEN TRYING ANY NEW LOADS!!! ANY DATA DEEMED UNSAFE WILL BE REMOVED!!!
URL: http://www.enfield-rifles.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=13519
Printed Date: March 26 2026 at 8:18pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Primer data & accuracy
Posted By: Kerryjack
Subject: Primer data & accuracy
Date Posted: September 01 2024 at 5:07pm
|
Hi again After going down the headspace rabbit hole I am now deciding to seek actual applied data as opposed to personal opinions. Worked out well with my headspace issues so now I am after the same sort of data for primers. I am told by various opinion sources that primers effect accuracy and while there is a plethora of opinions on the forums I cannot find any actual supporting ballistics data. If it does exist I am sure someone here will be able to point me in the correct direction. I only shoot BAM using number 4 mk1 and a 303 P-14. I contacted a competition barrel manufacturer through their FAQ's they suggested I will have more luck holding back the tide. They asked am I referring to "speed" or "accuracy"? Not sure the relevance of the question so I am asking in here. Save me looking like a shmuck. I am willing and able to read through technical data as the technical data people usually remove or identify all the variables and then post actual data as opposed to opinions. Thanks Kerry ------------- Nobody |
Replies:
Posted By: SW28fan
Date Posted: September 01 2024 at 8:52pm
|
The thing is primers Can effect accuracy. The load the individual and individual rifle are big factors. One rifle and/or load may be very finicky and with another it does not matter much. That being said I prefer Remington Large rifle primers when I can get them. ------------- Have a Nice Day If already having a nice day please disregard |
Posted By: Kerryjack
Date Posted: September 01 2024 at 9:21pm
|
SW28fan If so, how do you know this and where is the data to support your views? Not saying you are incorrect but all truths start out as the heresy of one. What I am looking for are the explanations from a quantifiable perspective. As an example, a prominent poster on another forum stated that ICC primers were crap because his groups went to he!! when using them, ok, but I notice that shooters have won prestigious competitions and set impressive records also using ICC primers. Can both be right at the same time? If so, how and why. Someone or some manufacturer would have tested primers and performance and would have published the data, even if only to progress their own commercial interests. The scientific reasons for the effect on accuracy when using certain primers would therefore be published. Where would I find the scientific ballistics data that explained the reasons and identified the primer makes? If the barrel manufacture did not agree with the accuracy claims I should imagine he only states this because of actual data. If a particular primer can have a 2 MOA effect at 200m with the type of rifle I am using, it would make sense to avoid that primer brand/construction. I don't want to get into chasing unicorns. Thanks Kerry ------------- Nobody |
Posted By: Sapper740
Date Posted: September 02 2024 at 4:08am
|
I've been handloading for nigh on half a century and couldn't begin to estimate how many metallic cartridges and shotshe!!s I've reloaded. Still, I don't consider myself an expert as I've only been a casual competition shooter over the decades. My goal, not always obtained is 1 MOA for my military bolt action rifles so I've done quite a bit of experimenting to get there with rifles only expected to achieve 3 or 4 MOA with service ammunition. When working up handloads I take my Lead Sled to a climate controlled indoor range so environmental changes won't factor in such as wind gusts and extremes in temperature, especially here in Texas. In my completely unscientific opinion here are what I perceive to affect .303 British chambered rifles accuracy the most: 1) Barrel condition. Self explanatory. 2) Bullet. I've had good results with premium bullets such as SMKs, LeHigh Target copper solids, and Hornady SST which consistently outperform the rest. 3) Powder. The .303 British cartridge dotes on Varget. 4) Case prep. All that entails. 5) Bullet seating depth. 6) Primer type. Please, before you start spluttering over your keyboard to tell me I'm a boor that should never be around gentle society remember, these are my completely unscientific opinions. |
Posted By: britrifles
Date Posted: September 02 2024 at 5:19am
|
Yup, that’s about my experience too. Except I’d also add forend bedding condition with the Lee Enfield. Stock bedding in general affects accuracy of most wood stocked military service rifles. Here’s my list on the variables that affect accuracy with the Lee Enfield service rifle: 1. Shooter skill 2. Forend bedding 3. Barrel condition 4. Bullet choice and seating depth 5. Powder selection and charge weight 6. Cartridge case consistency (including case prep) 7. Primer selection A word on item 4, bullet choice and seating depth. Some bullets are quite insensitive to how much jump to the lands, others are not. The 174 SMK is insensitive to jump, so seat this to magazine length (I seat it to 3.05 inches to ensure reliable feeding for rapid fire stages). Seating longer reduces pressures, seating shorter increases pressure. You won’t find what you are looking for Kerryjack. There are some variables that can only be assessed empirically. We can assess the effect of the primer by measuring bullet muzzle velocity with loads that use different primers (keeping all other variables the same). It shows up with velocity extreme spreads and standard deviation. The only rifle I’ve noticed a significant difference in primers was with my DCRA No. 4 7.62. For long range shooting (800 to 1000 yds) I use CCI BR-2 primers. These give me the best (lowest) standard deviation, typically 5 to 9 fps. Low standard deviation shows up on the target at longer ranges as reduced vertical spread. All the other primers I tested gave me 15 fps and higher. I did not test Federal Gold Medal Match, which may perform as good as BR-2. The other variables associated with the cartridge load data can influence standard deviation too, so it takes experimenting to find a load that produced standard deviations below 10 fps. Agree, Varget (ADI AR2208) is a great powder choice for the LE’s in .303 and .308/7.62. Also, in my opinion, you won’t see a significant accuracy difference with primer selection shooting at 200 yds and less. Even at 600 yds, I can’t say I’ve noticed much difference on group size between different primers. For competitive service rifle shooting, the most benefit comes from concentrating on item #1 in my list above (shooter skill). You won’t improve by shooting off the bench, tweaking loads and testing different primers. All of these little variables tend to “get in your head” and are detrimental to item #1 on the list. I know because I’ve been there. I spent far too long in load development shooting off a bench. All I succeeded in doing was to reduce valuable barrel life. Yes, some load development is needed, but it can be greatly minimized by making good component selection from what we know works well in the .303. |
Posted By: shiloh
Date Posted: September 02 2024 at 7:32am
|
Here`s what I know about primers, they create a spark that ignites the powder which makes an awful loud noise sending the bullet to its intended target. I`m with Brit and Sapper on this. I also have been loading for decades, I`m not a competitive shooter but rather a hunter. Coming from the military, I see things in minute of man at all range distances, or minute of deer, grouse, wolf, groundhog etc... I use what ever primers I can find locally usually Canpro or CCI, I have use magnum primers where needed(if the recipe calls for it). Learn the skills required to become a proficient shooter and stop chasing MOA with rifles that are not designed to print 1" groups at any distance. Service rifles were designed to kill people efficiently, a human body is a big target 4-6 moa is sufficient to do that job.(no offense to anyone who may be squeamish) And as with all, some service rifles by happen chance, shoot much better than others, ie Lee Enfields. Those particular rifles usually ended up being turned into TR rifles, and still they`re only as good as the shooter behind them. |
Posted By: paddyofurniture
Date Posted: September 02 2024 at 8:18am
|
I do like when I can make a nice group on my target or get the Grandbabies to keep it on target. The end game took is to put Bambi or Porky in the freezer. No Bullwinkle in the Carolinas you can shoot. ------------- Always looking for military manuals, Dodge M37 items,books on Berlin Germany, old atlases ( before 1946) , military maps of Scotland. English and Canadian gun parts. |
Posted By: Doco Overboard
Date Posted: September 02 2024 at 8:36am
|
Finding specific data on primers I think may be difficult because it's my understanding that specific methods are closely guarded by the manufacturers. Trade secrets if you will, as far as compounding mixtures, charging primer cups establishing brisance, safety in manufacturing and that sort of thing. As far as accuracy, I never a read a source that dealt with good maintenance of accuracy that didn't name consistency/quality in the manufacture of the bullet specifically the envelope or jacket as being the most significant factor in determining overall performance characteristics in well made ammunition and arms with compound bullets. |
Posted By: Shamu
Date Posted: September 02 2024 at 11:46am
|
Primers can definitely effect POI. Not group size, but where that group prints. I was obliged to use Tula "KV-B 7" LR primers some years back because they were all that was available. They had several issues. Jamming in the Dillon RL500b primer feed tube. (once irrevocably, Dillon replaced the tube because bashing on a stack of primers is a bad idea.) Refusing to seat in cleaned reamed & uniformed primer pockets. The same pockets treated in the same way had never had a problem before or since! (They jammed up on the mouth & jammed up the press several times. Unlike the normal 'smooth resistance" of a primer seating from everyone else they "snagged & jumped." when seating. I wonder how many primer pellets were cracked or damaged during all this?) Accuracy & POI both changed during this unfortunate episode & I keep the remaining loads with them as "reserve & practice" ammo. I'm slowly whittling it away. ------------- Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force) |
Posted By: britrifles
Date Posted: September 02 2024 at 12:04pm
|
Shiloh put it succinctly. And Doco also mentioned a good point in that accuracy stems from consistency in quality of the manufacture of components. Bullet jacket envelope thickness being probably the most significant factor in accuracy. 40 years ago, few bullet makers could achieve this, but now we have many excellent bullets. Getting any WWI or WWII service rifle to consistently hold 1 MOA is exceedingly rare, nearly impossible, especially with original sights. Scoped off a bench, it’s possible. Shiloh is quite right of course, these rifles were not designed for the purpose of target shooting, especially not Benchrest shooting. They were intended to hit an enemy soldier out to about 500 yds with aimed fire in the hands of a trained soldier. If we are completely honest with ourselves, we would rate the Lee Enfield (good barrel and well fitting forend) as a 2 MOA shooter with match quality ammunition. This is shooting prone unsupported with the aid of a sling and aperture sight. Yes, it can do better at times on a very good day. I’ve shot a number of 10 round groups around 1.5 MOA and sometimes a bit better. But these are very infrequent and involve a certain amount of luck when errors in aim, hold and the normal dispersion of bullet point of impact on the target cancel out to some degree. I say this from some level of experience in shooting tens of thousands of rounds in service rifle competition. In all this shooting, only once did I put 10 consecutive shots in the 3 inch X ring at 200 yards in a match with my No. 4, that’s a 1.5 MOA group. I’ll probably never do it again. In all of this, primers make the least difference. Ive used CCI #200, CCI #34, WLR, Federal 210 and others with no perceptible accuracy difference with the one exception of the CCI BR-2 at long range in my DCRA No. 4 7.62mm conversion. CCI #200 and BR-2 primers are identical except they take additional quality control measures during manufacture of the BR-2 which results in a more consistently controlled ignition of the powder charge. |
Posted By: Sapper740
Date Posted: September 02 2024 at 12:41pm
Too true. Despite using every trick in the book to get consistencey in my handloads as well as shooting from a Lead Sled at an indoor range with no gusting winds or boil and a perfectly illuminated target I have only once achieved 1 MOA from a Lee Enfield rifle. As soon as I go to an outdoor range shooting off bags my groups open up. Even with my Fulton regulated No. 3 and PH5A rear sight the best at the indoor range is 1.5 MOA. Many of my rifles struggle to achieve 2 MOA off the Lead Sled indoors. Take them outside on a hot gusty Texas day and the groups are usually twice that.
|
britrifles wrote:Posted By: shiloh
Date Posted: September 02 2024 at 1:41pm
|
I concur, It is a whole different game when playing with mother nature. That being said, I can usually hit a groundhog dead every time with my 1941 BSA No4 out to around 150yrd, or close enough to scare it to death lols. Depending on terrain I`ll shot prone or sitting supported(rock, log stump etc). |
Posted By: paddyofurniture
Date Posted: September 02 2024 at 2:01pm
|
That works for me. ------------- Always looking for military manuals, Dodge M37 items,books on Berlin Germany, old atlases ( before 1946) , military maps of Scotland. English and Canadian gun parts. |
Posted By: Kerryjack
Date Posted: September 02 2024 at 2:21pm
|
Snapper740, your "Please, before you start spluttering over your keyboard to tell me I'm a boor that should never be around gentle society remember" comment tells me you have run into some unappreciative bafoons in your travels, I am not one of them. I came to this forum for knowledge based on experience and I always leave a more knowledgeable person. I am a two ears - one mouth type of person. The barrel maker was right, I will not find what cannot exist. The one thing that stands out from the experienced based comments comes back to learning fundamental skills as the starting point, the one item that is not for sale. All I want to do is shoot my BAM rifles as well as my skill level will allow. Maybe people don't want to tell me my skills are not so good and this is why they seem to want to send me down rabbit holes looking for the panacea that they believe exists in a distant place. What I take from all the experienced based comments is, the quality and tolerances of my BAM rifles will never operate at a level where the (alleged) performance differences between primers will be a defining element of accuracy. I will hear the noise, nod politely and acknowledge the offer of support and then concentrate on the real culprit, me. Thank you all for the experienced based comments and not populous rhetoric. Kerry ------------- Nobody |
Posted By: britrifles
Date Posted: September 02 2024 at 3:55pm
|
All of my comments pertained to shooting outdoors. It’s been many years since I’ve shot at an indoor range. When my Fulton built Long Branch No. 4 was “new”, I shot a few hundred rounds of Canadian Mk 7z WWII surplus ammo thru it at an indoor 100 yard range with PH 5c sight. It grouped at about 2.5 inches. When I changed to handloads (outdoors) and fitted a scope, that shrunk to 1.25 to 1.5 MOA off the bench. Moving to prone and back to aperture sight, 1.5 to 2 MOA (outdoors). That’s about as good as it gets. We had a member here that routinely posted targets with 10 and sometimes 20 rounds with extreme spreads under 1 MOA, sometimes as small as 1/3 MOA, rather unbelievable. Minute of Internet some would say….
|
Posted By: A square 10
Date Posted: September 02 2024 at 7:11pm
|
i dont load the kind of rounds yall do - mine are low velocity by design for both my cowboy action rifles , revolvers [around 650fps] and shotgun [around 860-950fps] and then there are my antiques that i also download for as plinking fodder , i run factory loads in my modern stuff but not for competition anymore as i gave up three gun a good number of years ago so i load whatever primers i can find ....cheaper the better , i do load a lot each year as in 1000s , but everything is relative to what im shooting , i havent loaded for trap/sporting clays in at least five years now so that reduced my needs a bunch and i have over 7000 of my cowboy shotgun loaded right now so i may let that machine just set for this year , i am working up a 4570 load dfor long range in my sharps but thats more a hobby right now ....but i have a fair stock of one lot primers to get that done and load all my brass - im loading federals in that
|
Posted By: Sapper740
Date Posted: September 03 2024 at 2:41am
Ah yes, I remember that gentleman. It seemed no matter what a member posted he had done it better, faster, cheaper, sooner, or more often.
|
Posted By: britrifles
Date Posted: September 03 2024 at 3:45am
^^^^ This Endless load development searching for the magic formula of components and variables and shooting off the bench won’t advance your shooting skill. It’s a distraction quite frankly and a good way to inhibit your progress. If you happen to have access to ADI AR2208 (Varget) load up 40 grains and seat either the 174 Sierra MatchKing or 174 Hornady Match to 3.05 OAL, case and primer of your choice. This load will shoot as good as any other. Then go concentrate on the shooting position fundamentals without all the clutter going on in your head about what might be wrong with the load. Once you can hold a 2 MOA ten shot group at short range (300 yds and under), you might find a hair bit of improvement at mid to long range (500 to 1000 yds) by tweaking loads a bit, but not necessary. |
Posted By: Zed
Date Posted: September 03 2024 at 4:11am
|
I shoot Service rifle competition in France. We only get a couple of events; and I don't have the opportunity to practice as much as I need to. I lose far more points by my inconsistentcies; than problems with the load. I don't have access to all of the powders that are available. But there are some good ones. I've tried a few, and different loads. But once you find a good repeatable load. Just get out and practice. As far as primers go; I have only tried Federal and Winchester. Didn't notice any real difference. ------------- It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice! |
Posted By: Sapper740
Date Posted: September 03 2024 at 5:40am
It's uncanny how many shooters, independently working up accurate handloads have come up with this formula.
|
Posted By: britrifles
Date Posted: September 03 2024 at 6:04am
Yup, I've been shooting this load for many years now. Not sure exactly how long (at least 10 years) and where I got the idea to try Varget. Prior to this load, I used Re 15, it's also excellent with the .303 but is a bit temp sensitive, shows up at 600 yards shooting summer vs winter, but not so much at 200.
|
Posted By: britrifles
Date Posted: September 03 2024 at 8:02am
|
Shamu, if you happen to read this, might be better if this thread is moved to the .303 Reloading Forum [EDITORS COMMENT] I HAVE MOVED THESE POSTS TO .303 RELOADING, the thread is titled "primer data & accuracy" which is where they belong anyway. Its not possible to "move a a thread" with the forum software, but individual posts can be moved. I tried to move them in the same order, but if I erred its entirely my fault. Dot & carry one can me a trying methodology sometimes.  |
Posted By: Honkytonk
Date Posted: September 03 2024 at 8:48am
Ah yes, I remember that gentleman. It seemed no matter what a member posted he had done it better, faster, cheaper, sooner, or more often. [/QUOTEI remember that gentleman. Lots of knowledge, could be a tad forward, but as they say " you reap what you sow. " That being said, I did buy a P-H apature sight from him at a very reasonable price and he was good to deal with.
|
Posted By: britrifles
Date Posted: September 04 2024 at 12:51pm
|
Apologies in advance for the long article here, but wanted to back up some of my previous statements with actual shooting results. To illustrate my previous posts regarding the accuracy capability of the No. 4 Lee Enfield shooting prone unsupported with the aid of a sling and aperture sights, I shot this 800 yard target shown below this past June. This was with my Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (DCRA) 7.62 Conversion of a Fazakerley No. 4 Mk 2 with a Long Branch made 7.62mm barrel (of normal .303 service weight). The conversion was done by Canadian Arsenals Ltd in Long Branch, Ontario for the purposes of SR(b) target shooting sponsored by the DCRA. Barrel is bedded in the forend at the sling swivel band with 12-14 lbs pressure and at the chamber reinforce and has 2,300 rounds thru it. The rifle is fitted with a Parker Hale 5C ¼ MOA click adjustable rear sight with standard six hole eyepiece and A.J. Parker “Matchmaker” front sight. The Load: Lapua .308 Win case - neck sized CCI BR-2 benchrest primers 44.0 gr Varget (ADI AR2208) – all charges weighed Sierra 168 gr Tipped MatchKing seated to 2.95 inches for 0.020 inches off the lands. At this distance (800 yds) you can expect significant lateral dispersion due to wind drift and the challenge to identify and adjust (in advance of each shot) for the small shifts in wind direction and strength. Vertical dispersion is a good indicator of how accurate the rifle and load is when fired off the elbows in the prone position. I shot 12 rounds here, shot #11 was in the 8 ring at 9:00 caused by an undetected wind strength change. The target monitor is zoomed in to show the full 10 ring and part of the 9 ring. A 1 MOA grid line overlay can also be seen on the target photo. This load gives 5 to 9 fps standard deviation in velocity, the best I have recorded in .303 and 7.62/.308 handloads. I attribute this to careful attention to reloading steps, quality of components and the consistency of the BR-2 primer. Substituting CCI #200 primers or WRL primers gave more than double the velocity standard deviation. This consistency in muzzle velocity is what helps maintain a reasonably small vertical spread at long range: 12 inches (1.5 MOA) for the 12 shots. Excluding shot #11, the windage spread is 16 inches (2 MOA). At 200 yards, I have equaled this 1.5 MOA group with ten shots shooting prone with my Fulton Regulated Long Branch No. 4 Mk I/3 (with standard as issued Mk 1 rear sight and blade foresight) in .303 using my standard .303 match load: PPU case, WLR primer, 40.0 gr Varget (charges thrown directly from measure into case) and 174 gr SMK seated to 3.05 inches. 200 yards is more forgiving of the small variations in case dimensions/weight, primer, powder charge weight, etc. than they are at 800 or 1000 yards. I’ve not yet been able to get a standard bedded (3-5 lb muzzle bearing) No. 4 rifle to shoot quite as good as those with center or mid-band bedded forends. Some of this could be barrel condition. I’ve gotten close, but not quite as good.
|
Posted By: Mayhem
Date Posted: September 04 2024 at 4:40pm
|
Thanks for taking the time to put this together. Good to see you have upgraded to Shotmarker! ------------- .303 - Helping Englishmen express their feelings since 1889 |
Posted By: britrifles
Date Posted: September 04 2024 at 5:30pm
|
Not my own target system. This was shot at the Dead Zero range near Spencer, Tennessee, open to the public. Hard to find a range with targets out to 1000 yards in the US South East. The range I usually shoot at in Talladega, Alabama only goes out to 600 yds. It has the Kongsberg Target system. The CMP is in the process of converting over to a wireless target system, not sure what it is yet. I do like the features of the shot marker system though. Many different target overlays can be selected, but I was told not to mess with them as it changes everyone else’s target overlay! |
Posted By: Strangely Brown
Date Posted: September 05 2024 at 2:57am
Agree! I like the Shot Marker system too, although it's ruined at Bisley by pairing it with cheap and unsuitable monitors, i.e. the cheapest tablets to be found on Ebay! We also have Kongsberg's which I have found to be brilliant, the let down on both systems is the lack of a tin hat target face despite my whinging about it at every opportunity. ------------- Mick |
Posted By: britrifles
Date Posted: September 05 2024 at 5:35am
|
Mick, I don’t understand the reluctance of the use of a tin hat target face for the Historical Matches. After all, that is the true historical target type used at short and mid range! Does not take much effort to change the target face prior to and after the match. I believe I’ve seen the correct sized score rings for SR(b) shooting in the shot marker system, but would be much better if paired with the correct target face!
|
Posted By: Strangely Brown
Date Posted: September 05 2024 at 6:36am
|
Geoff, this is really for practice days when booking a lane for myself, most historic competitions do use tin hat targets I'm pleased to say. I had a very positive conversation with the guy in charge of range maintenance who was going to contact Kongsberg...three weeks later covid descended upon the UK, 2 years later he left the NRA for new pastures so it ever happened. Since that first conversation we now have Shotmarker on the range as well as Kongsberg, the Shotmaster targets have the tin hat dimensions included in the system but no tin hat target face. I've asked a couple of people who represent the historical shooting side of Bisley if it can be discussed at the NRA Council meeting later this month. <holding my breath> ------------- Mick |
Posted By: britrifles
Date Posted: September 05 2024 at 6:54am
|
I wished the CMP would provide an optional tin hat target face, but no chance of that ever happening. As far as I can tell, the US Army or USMC never used the tin hat target. Although, they did use at one time a bull that scored 5 rather than the current 10. |
Posted By: Mayhem
Date Posted: September 05 2024 at 4:23pm
|
You can make your own targets up. If I find a sight with the correct dimensions, I may invest the time in learning how to build a custom target. Also, you can change each individual target face independently. We always have both field and service targets running at the same time. I bought my own access point, so I can look at my targets later and measure group sizes. I simply connect to the system at the range with my phone and export my sessions. Then when I get home I import them into my access point and I have the same environment on my laptop. ------------- .303 - Helping Englishmen express their feelings since 1889 |