[43x]

Primers?
From: Carol Lister
Email:
Date: Mon, May 04, 2009 - 01:28 PM ET
Website Address:

Congratulations on not having split your chamber yet, Longshot. Obviously you haven't read everything that matters on the subject. Quote of a letter on the subject from Alliant:

"I am Dick Quesenberry, Product Manager for Alliant Canister Powder. Ben and I have discussed your e-mails and problems with Rio primers and our product. I apologize for the difficulty that you have encountered and appreciate you using our product.
We just completed work for the new revision of our Reloaders Guide, which was very badly needed. During this effort we tested all primers in a standard controlled load for both straight wall and tapered shells to correlate their brisance. The following conclusions were drawn from that effort:

· Primer brisance will vary from Lot to Lot within the same brand. Most vary within SAAMI safety limits but Rio was found to be extremely variable.

· We do not publish reloading recipes using Rio primers for the above reason

I have also talked to Kevin at Down Range (who happens to be a great guy) and he agrees with our findings.

If I was forced into recommending load data using the Rio 209, I would have to recommend loading like the Federal 209A and that may still give slightly higher velocities and pressures. ...

Call them an verify if you care to; I don't make this kind of stuff up just to annoy people like you. BTW, the original inquiries involved Promo, Red Dot and Clay Dot.

Lister

 

[Rob MacK]

Thanks for that info 43x good to know.

Cheers,

Rob MacK

 

[ohsay]

Interesting info, 43x. And basically what I've been saying since some people here started raving about rio primers as substitutions.

In my testing I found the primers themselves not to be too terribly inconsistent (certainly not great though), but to be incredibly inconsistent on how they perform from one load to the next with STEEL powder. There was very little rhyme or reason to the velocities and pressures of a given load. Currently, I only use them in one STEEL powder load. I'm burning up most of my stock on a target load using Unique powder. They perform consistently in it, but well beyond the speed and pressure that load generates with a 209A.

 

[Ned S]

Alliant did not test them with STEEL. Now, I use Rio's in the Rio hull only and shoot them only in my 935 finding them very consistant after Ohsays warning. SAAMII says the 935 is good to 14,000 psi and the Brtits 15,000+. The Rio primers are .004" larger than the American primers illiminating resizing the primer hole in the Rio hulls. I would not use them with any other propellant or hull. Ohsay, was your post directed at me???? Probably. Ned S

 

[ohsay]

Coincidentally, the only load using STEEL powder that I still use them in is also a 2 3/4" Rio hull recipe. They are of similar enough construction to cheddites though that I doubt that is why that one recipe seems to perform consistently, while many 2 3/4" cheddite loads I tested did not. I spent A LOT of time and components testing various load combinations trying to sort out why they were performing so poorly and found 3" Rio hulls to suffer the same problems in STEEL loads as all the other 3" hulls did, especially in heavier recipes. I tested and tested because I truly did want them to be a component I could benefit from in my loading, but that just didn't turn out to be the case.

My post was directed at those who are reading the thread Ned, but it's no secret you were one of if not the first here to start hawking them as a proper substitute for 209As. My opinion of Rio primers is that they pretty much suck, and are downright terrible as a blind substitution for a 209A. That is merely my opinion, but the fact that they've been available for quite some time at a very reasonable price yet no major powder companies publish any data utilizing them certainly doesn't help dispute that opinion. Nor do statements like this one above from Mr. Quesenberry at Alliant. I honestly should have seen the writing on the wall when I first heard about them being subbed here, and then researched and read reports from people using them on other shooting forums. Some claimed they were hotter than 209As, some said weaker, some said consistent, others said not, and on and on. You don't find such a wide variety of claims about any other primer. That in itself is very telling, and seems to support my findings that from one given load/recipe to the next, results vary dramatically. There may well be a few very good loads to be found that would use a rio primer, I'm just certainly not going to invest any more time and effort trying to find that rare combination when there are much better primers available to us.

 

[43x]

ohsay, I went back and dug out some old stuff I'd ran 2 yrs ago with RIO 209. The RIO seems to be load sensitive on all the tests I've done with Steel, & Red Dot Powder.

I did manage to work a nice 2 3/4" 12 ga 1- 1/16 oz steel with the RIO primer that averaged 1600 fps at 10,700 psi
ES= 1750 PSI
ES= 58 fps

I tested the RIO in the cleaver mirage hulls. One load worked out to be a nice load, that same load with one grain less powder was terrible .

For the Red Dot, I ended up with using a Downrange DR-12 wad, 1oz lead shot, in a sts hull average was 1201fps - 8684 psi

43x

 

[ohsay]

I think the only powders I tested it with were STEEL, Longshot, and Unique, and had the exact same results. They just make everything so finicky from one load to the next. Tiny changes that have at least a degree of predictability in most loads are all over the map with those rio primers. I might have tested a couple blue dot ones too, but I'd have to check. I found that one combination in the 2 3/4" rio hull that worked well with STEEL, but it was kind of an accident. It's a nice little 1 oz 1625 fps load though. The target load I've been using my stock of rio 209s on is a rio target hull load with unique and RXP12s. It runs about 80 fps and over 2k psi hotter with the rio than it does with a 209A though. I tested some of my old favorite heavy 3" loads on the first go around and couldn't believe the disparity in the results. Sometimes they were over 200 fps slower with that substitution. I posted the results of those first casual tests in one of the old rio threads here. I remember at the time surmising that the inconsistency might have been a result of the weight of the loads, because the lighter ones I tested then seemed more on par with their 209a counterparts, and everyone who seemed to be subbing them at the time was shooting fairly light loads. I tried a ton of different combination though, including lighter ones, and eventually just threw in the towel. The best thing I can say about them is that they were really cheap, even if all the testing wasn't.

 

[Ned S]

I'm shooting a 1 oz load in the Rio hull with the Rio primer. I shot 5 primers in a Gold Medal hull with the 7/8CSD shotcup only in my 935. The Rio velocities were vary consistant and almost Identical to the Feds. I shot Fioochi, White and Blue Box W209, Rems, CCI, Feds, Rios, and Cheddites. Fed209A and Rios were the most consistant, Cheddites were second best. The Blue Box Win 209 were terrible. Ned S

 

[ohsay]

Did we lose some posts again? 43x had another one that I hadn't yet responded to and now it seems to be gone.

To answer it, no. I didn't really find a good load with longshot using a rio primer. I only tried with steel shot though, and didn't try many. Sound(ed) like you might have been wondering about it with heavy lead loads?

Ned, since there are people who do take what you say as gospel you might want to at least date the experiences you keep repeating. People have found the blue box win209s to be very consistent for years now, no longer suffering the problems they did after the change. And shooting five shells with only a primer and wad is a very poor test to compare one primer to another. The fact that you recommended them as a substitution based on that is frankly, a little frightening.

 

[43x]

Thanks for the response. I've got 6.000 Rio's and I'm finding out you have to do your homework to find a decent load . I talked to Kevin at DownRange and he told me he tested some published loads that called for the RIO Primer and they came in HOT !!!

I just finished up some stuff and will be sending it off to get tested. This includes the RIO Primer with HS-6, in a 1 1/4oz and 700X in a 1 oz . both these are lead loads

I also duplicated one of these Internet special Dane loads, :bow: Hope it turns out better than the VP 60 & VP 53 wad did :lol3:

What prupose does shooting wads from a primed hull serve ??

http://www.rioammo.com/components_primers.htm

 

[Sagebrush]

I will be waiting for that 1 1/4oz HS-6 data since I used w571 in a lot of 1 1/4oz lead load when that Win powder was available.

With w209 I had good results so never tried any other primers. Never liked 700x but have used 800x and the Alliant powders.

Note: I did get good groups with my 6" mod 19 S&W with a 148 bbwc and 5.5 grs of w571 but this loading is not in any reloading books and most list HS-6 as the slowest powder for target loads, so use this at your own risk, if you try it.

 

[43x]

sagebrush, win571 is the same as HS-7,

win 540 is same as HS-6

 

[cartervj]

"I also duplicated one of these Internet special Dane loads, Hope it turns out better than the VP 60 & VP 53 wad did

What prupose does shooting wads from a primed hull serve ??" 43X

are you saying you had better luck with the B&P wads? just kinda curious.

 

[Ned S]

Did we lose some posts again? 43x had another one that I hadn't yet responded to and now it seems to be gone.

To answer it, no. I didn't really find a good load with longshot using a rio primer. I only tried with steel shot though, and didn't try many. Sound(ed) like you might have been wondering about it with heavy lead loads?

Ned, since there are people who do take what you say as gospel you might want to at least date the experiences you keep repeating. People have found the blue box win209s to be very consistent for years now, no longer suffering the problems they did after the change. And shooting five shells with only a primer and wad is a very poor test to compare one primer to another. The fact that you recommended them as a substitution based on that is frankly, a little frightening.

Come on Ohsay, you know Dang well that testing primers the way I did has no bearing how they perform with powder. I was only testing primer consistancy. I left out two variables powder and shot. I have only published my experience with Blue Box W209's, nothing more, However Jonmac had the same experience as I and he also stated the latest Blue Box W209 primers (he published the lot number) were giving him the same results as the old White Box ones. Dang you are getting as critical of my posts as another poster. Ned S the young 81 yr old who just found out that Mayo's in Scottsdale is no longer taking Medicare and Mayo in Rochester will stop in 2012.

 

[43x]

cartervj,
B&P wad OAL
TUWSBL24 ( 7/8 oz).. 1.640
TUWSBL28 ( 1 oz).. 1.640

HelarcoUS OAL
VP53 ( 7/8 oz ).. 1.780
VP60 ( 1oz) .. 1.725
VP65 ( 1 1/8oz)..1.655

Reloading Specialities OAL
Sam 1 ( 12ga 2 3/4")..1.635
Sam ( 12 ga 3" )... 1.920

 

[ohsay]

So why do you say it, Ned? That's what's frustrating. You KNOW that test tells you almost nothing about how rios will compare to 209as in actual loads, but you say they're consistent and equal to a 209a anyway. You KNOW the blue box win209s perform perfectly well now, but you say you found them to be inconsistent anyway. There's no room for misinterpretation in those statements, and if you're not saying them to imply what they do, then why are you saying them at all? You don't say that test has no relevance to how they'll perform with powder. You don't say that win209s perform fine now. You leave them incomplete and they can only lead people to false conclusions. I only ask, and am frustrated by it because people read things like that and take them as they're stated. You're far too smart a guy not to realize that, so I just never understand why you say them at all. It's just... foolish.

You know I don't follow you around the forums to attack you like some others do. I just dispute some of your statements and 'facts' if I disagree with them or find them misleading. Sorry to hear about the Medicare thing. Unfortunately it's happening a lot of places.

 

[jrockncash]

So why do you say it, Ned? That's what's frustrating. You KNOW that test tells you almost nothing about how rios will compare to 209as in actual loads, but you say they're consistent and equal to a 209a anyway. You KNOW the blue box win209s perform perfectly well now, but you say you found them to be inconsistent anyway. There's no room for misinterpretation in those statements, and if you're not saying them to imply what they do, then why are you saying them at all? You don't say that test has no relevance to how they'll perform with powder. You don't say that win209s perform fine now. You leave them incomplete and they can only lead people to false conclusions. I only ask, and am frustrated by it because people read things like that and take them as they're stated. You're far too smart a guy not to realize that, so I just never understand why you say them at all. It's just... foolish.

You know I don't follow you around the forums to attack you like some others do. I just dispute some of your statements and 'facts' if I disagree with them or find them misleading. Sorry to hear about the Medicare thing. Unfortunately it's happening a lot of places.

Nothing unfortunate about it at all. If Medicare would pay the doctors the amount of money that the service is worth than they wouldnt have to stop taking medicare as an insurance. One caveat to that is if they did pay what it was worth the government would go bankrupt (er).

I like the back and forth between two guys that generally know what they are talking about. Ohsay your season about shut down yet? Whats the outlook for those snow geese? Im still trying to plan a trip out that way to hunt em but none of my buddy's want to pay money to hunt flying carp. :lol3:

 

[ohsay]

By 'unfortunate' I meant 'the whole system is ****ed'. :biggrin: I've lost track of how many years we've gone at it and how many presidents we've had try to overhaul the system, but I feel like if we'd have played a little nicer with eachother (dems and reps that is) along the way things would be better than they are now, and are going to be after this bill passes. I swear health care is more partisan than abortion, and I don't think it ends up serving the public well at all. Probably shouldn't discuss such things in this forum though. Don't have to read many thread to know us reloaders are a hotheaded bunch. lol

Shut down? Heck no. We've still got a couple weeks to shoot ducks and over a month to kill honks. We take about a week off after that, try to repair the damage another season has wrought with our wives and girlfriends, and then get busy planning the snow season. It's supposed to warm up in February so I'm hoping the early migration will be good and stay fairly steady throughout. Last year the weather was whacky and they were making huge jumps at a time. I think I asked in another thread, but where are you planning on going?

 

[jrockncash]

NeuOutdoors or something like that. The guy was in Nebraska if I remember right. I really dont want to go with a guide but Im not buying a couple thousand snow decoys for one trip. I know one guy that has family in South Dakota but he gets busy in the spring time.

 

[Ned S]

So why do you say it, Ned? That's what's frustrating. You KNOW that test tells you almost nothing about how rios will compare to 209as in actual loads, but you say they're consistent and equal to a 209a anyway. You KNOW the blue box win209s perform perfectly well now, but you say you found them to be inconsistent anyway. There's no room for misinterpretation in those statements, and if you're not saying them to imply what they do, then why are you saying them at all? You don't say that test has no relevance to how they'll perform with powder. You don't say that win209s perform fine now. You leave them incomplete and they can only lead people to false conclusions. I only ask, and am frustrated by it because people read things like that and take them as they're stated. You're far too smart a guy not to realize that, so I just never understand why you say them at all. It's just... foolish.

You know I don't follow you around the forums to attack you like some others do. I just dispute some of your statements and 'facts' if I disagree with them or find them misleading. Sorry to hear about the Medicare thing. Unfortunately it's happening a lot of places.

Now you imply I am foolish. Ned S