223 vs 556 personal test - don't do this at home

[swampratt]

Some reading on primer thickness etc etc.. enjoy

PRIMER CHART & REFERENCE GUIDE

Small Handgun Standard .017" cup thickness

CCI 500
Federal 100 - Has a soft cup - good to use if hammer strike is light.
Federal 100M - Match version of above
Magtech PR-SP
Magtech PR-SPC - Lead-free "Clean Range" primer for indoor ranges etc.
Remington 1 ½
RWS 4031
Winchester WSP
Wolf Small Pistol SP - brass cup

Small Handgun Magnum .017" cup thickness

CCI 550 See Note 1 at the bottom of page
Federal 200
Federal 200M - Match version of above
Magtech PR-SPM
Remington 5 ½
RWS 4047
Winchester WSPM
Wolf Small Pistol Magnum SPM - brass cup

Large Handgun Standard .020" cup thickness

CCI 300
Federal 150 - Has a thinner cup
Magtech PR-LP
Remington 2 ½
RWS 5337
Winchester WLP
Wolf Large Pistol LP - brass cup

Large Handgun Magnum .020" cup thickness

CCI 350
Federal 155
Wolf Large Pistol Magnum LPM - brass cup

Small Rifle Standard

CCI 400 -thin .020" cup, not recommended for AR15 use by CCI/Speer. Good for .22 Hornet, .30 Carbine. See Note 1 at the bottom of the page
CCI BR4 - match primer with a thicker .025" cup.
Federal 205 - Mil-Spec cup thickness according to Federal - okay for 5.56mm. .0225" cup thickness.
Federal 205M - same as the 205 but the match version.
Magtech PR-SR - .025" cup thickness (not much feedback yet on this new primer as to AR15 suitability but with the same cup thickness as the Rem 7 1/2 it looks good so far)
Remington 6 ½ - thin .020" cup, intended for older, lower pressure rounds Remington says do not use for the .223 Rem or other similar pressure rounds. Good for .22 Hornet, .30 Carbine.
Remington 7 ½ BR - A match or "bench rest" primer. Lyman & Nosler classify this primer as a Standard. Remington says the compound is the same as the 6 1/2 but with a thicker .025" cup.
RWS 4033
Winchester WSR - some piercing issues noted when changed from silver to brass cup. Cup thickness is a bit thinner at .021". Most say they are good to go for the AR15 despite that, probably because of the hardness of the cup. Some feel they are less resistant to higher pressures.
Wolf Small Rifle SR - soft, sensitive copper cup, not recommended for AR15/military rifle use or high pressure rounds.

Small Rifle Magnum

CCI 450 - same thicker .025" cup as the BR4 and #41.
CCI #41 - commercial version of the fully-qualified DOD primer for use in U.S. military ammo. With this primer there is more 'distance' between the tip of the anvil and the bottom of the cup than with other CCI SR primers. .025" thick cup. Same primer mix as CCI 450.
Remington 7 ½ BR - A match or "bench rest" primer. Hornady, Handloads.com, and Chuck Hawks classify this primer as a Magnum, differing from other sources that classify it as a Standard. .025" cup thickness.
Wolf Small Rifle Magnum SRM - hard, less sensitive brass cup intended for AR15/military rifle and high pressure rounds.
Wolf Small Rifle 223 SR223 - "This is the newest primer available in the Wolf line. It is ever so slightly hotter than the small rifle magnum primer and it comes with a brass colored thick cup. This primer can be used in place of the SRM primer or used when a different powder is used that is hard to ignite."

Large Rifle Standard

CCI 200 - mild in brisance. Hard enough for use in semi-automatics.
CCI BR2 - same as the 200 but the match version. Hard enough for use in semi-automatics.
Federal 210 - medium brisance between CCI/Remington & Winchester. Do not use in semi-automatics.
Federal 210M - match version of the above primer. Do not use in semi-automatics.
Magtech PR-LR
Remington 9 ½ - mild in brisance.
RWS 5341
Winchester WLR - the hottest standard primer. Hard enough for use in semi-automatics.
Wolf Large Rifle LR - all brass - Used by noted match shooter David Tubbs who says: "Be sure they are seated into the case - if not they can be hard to ignite. Russian primers use a different sinoxide compound (closer to the European type), which, in my testing, consistently delivers better extreme spreads over Federal..." Hard enough for use in semi-automatics.

Large Rifle Magnum

CCI 250
CCI #34 - commercial version of the fully-qualified DOD primer for use in U.S. military ammo.
Federal 215 - original magnum primer
Remington 9 ½ M - mildest magnum primer.
RWS 5333
Winchester WLRM
Wolf Large Rifle Magnum LRM - all brass

50 BMG

CCI #35 - commercial version of the fully-qualified DOD primer for use in U.S. military ammo.
Winchester 8312

Primers recommended for use in .223 Rem/5.56 semiautomatic rifle loads:

CCI #41, 450, BR4 (#41 & 450 good with ball powder)
Federal 205, 205M
Remington 7 1/2 BR (good with ball powder)
Winchester WSR (good with ball powder)
Wolf SRM (good with ball powder)
Wolf SR223 (hotter than SRM - great with ball powder)

Primers recommended for use in .308 Win/7.62x51/7.62x39 semiautomatic rifle loads:

CCI #34, 200, BR2, CCI 250
Winchester WLR, WLRM (good with ball powder)
Wolf LR

##################################################################################

NOTE 1: According to Speer/CCI Technical Services - Both the CCI 550 Small Pistol Magnum and CCI 400 Small Rifle primers are identical in size. Both primers use the same cup metal and share the same cup thickness. Both primers use the same primer compound formula and same amount of primer compound. They can be used interchangeably.

 

[Blitzfike]

Thanks to MoBoost and Swampratt for some great info. I've perslonally witnessed the results of Mo's experiment. I found that some of the loads that worked great in one of my bolt action 22-250s and Encore don't work at all well in my 22-250 benchrest rifle. The chamber tolerances are much tighter in it and it will blow primers if the temp rises with it. I had to work up separate loads for it and segregate them.

 

[okietom]

Good to know.

 

[KurtM]

So are we to surmise that a 223 Creadmore is just like a standard 223 chamber? And as such shows that a 556x45 load is dangerous in a 223 chamber? Are we once again comparing apples and razor blades? Or are we just showing that every rifle is different, AND reloading isn't the same as factory ammo?

 

[MoBoost]

I fired the same load in both 223 and 556 chambers and both showed same pressure signs; to tell you the truth, I was expecting to see less flattened primer in 556 chamber just because it had so many rounds and 223 rifle is "match" and is "brand new", it just didn't happen.

Or are you just saying that Criterion/Creedmoor false advertise the chamber? I guess anything is possible.

 

[swampratt]

Primers selection could cause the over pressure..Of course we know this ..
Take a look at these pictures...quite interesting.

http://www.6mmbr.com/PrimerPix.html

 

[Blitzfike]

Swampratt that is truely an eye opener... I knew there were differences in primer brisance and have seen the results of substitutiion on the chronograph, but to see it visually really makes an impact.. Thanks

 

[KurtM]

No senor "extra pressure" (MoBoost), I wasn't saying anything about the Creedemore/ Criterion chamber, nor was I really saying anything there than every barrel and chamber is different. For example I had an AR barrel that
was marked 223 that would drop primer no matter what factory ammo was used. I took it off to ream it with a 556 reamed and couldn't get the pilot of the reamed to start into the throat. The bore, it turns out, was slightly undersized. Had an other AR barrel that needed almost 2 grains more powder to get the same velocities as my other ones and it never once spit a primer or destroyed a case all barrels are different. Hence the apples and razor blades.

 

[swampratt]

I have shot many different types of primers in my bolt guns and i have settled on the 210M federals.
way less spread in velocities with my 308 and 30-06.

And with that in mind i can sneak up on max pressures.

 

[MoBoost]

all barrels are different

I guess that's my point in a sense.

I was just seeing if there is a clear cut difference between 556 and 223 chambers that is so strongly speculated by some big name publications.

My limited firearms knowledge told me that variations in production chambers would grossly overtake any difference in 223 and 556 specifications. It was confirmed by C.I.P. testing, independent testing with strain gauge, and my personal test.

There is a chance that US Factory ammo marked 223 is loaded "light" - but published velocities don't support that either.