Federal reformulating it's primers?
- Thread starter zeke
- Start date
It's coming. All lead will eventually be out of primers, though Federal says it has no plans to replace primers sold to handloaders at this time. We'll see what occurs. The problem may be, if the new mix is as much more efficient at ignition as claimed, that old load recipes may be invalid with it.
The main drawback to a nitrocellulose-based primer is that, like powder, it will eventually age and break down. Current primers are pretty indefinitely stable, as far as I know. So when these things start taking over, keep aside a few slips of the old ones for your bugout gear.
The main drawback to a nitrocellulose-based primer is that, like powder, it will eventually age and break down. Current primers are pretty indefinitely stable, as far as I know. So when these things start taking over, keep aside a few slips of the old ones for your bugout gear.
I’m all for new improvements as long as they really are better and don’t come with a 50% increase in cost. I mean, smokeless powder was a generally good improvement over black powder, so it does happen every hundred years or so!
I wonder how this might impact indoor ranges if the major cause of lead in the air is eliminated (long ways down the road). Less expensive to set up, operate and insure? I can see how anyone who operates ranges, including police and military, would like to reduce or eliminate any airborne toxins.
But there have been so many “improvements” that cost four times as much and can’t be produced in the same quantities that I am skeptical but interested.
I wonder how this might impact indoor ranges if the major cause of lead in the air is eliminated (long ways down the road). Less expensive to set up, operate and insure? I can see how anyone who operates ranges, including police and military, would like to reduce or eliminate any airborne toxins.
But there have been so many “improvements” that cost four times as much and can’t be produced in the same quantities that I am skeptical but interested.
Here is a good read about it. https://www.outdoorlife.com/cartridge-primer-technology-developments#page-6
buck460XVR
New member
Nuttin' really new. Non-toxic primers have been around for a while already. Reason for small primers in .45ACP is so non-toxic primers could be used in factory ammo.
9MMand223only
New member
Apparently, lead free primers from at least Fiocchi are not as consistent as traditional, as SD, ES and accuracy were noticeably different according to these people.
http://www.natoreloading.com/primer1/
http://www.natoreloading.com/primer/
I think its pretty great how clean they make everything, however. Look at those lead free ones. WOW
http://www.natoreloading.com/primer1/
http://www.natoreloading.com/primer/
I think its pretty great how clean they make everything, however. Look at those lead free ones. WOW
I wouldn't put much value in their results. Basing their conclusions on single 5-shot or 10-shot groups is flawed.
Accuracy, standard deviation, and extreme spread will vary even more than they found when shooting the same ammo in 15-shot strings, and with accuracy assessed with the gun in a Ransom Rest.
See this article for details: https://americanhandgunner.com/handguns/exclusive-consistent-velocity-accuracy
9MMand223only
New member
I see, but that is not the point of that site. It looks like the point is to understand load data so people can choose what suits their needs better. Accuracy is and cannot be determined by shooting through 1 or 2 guns. It says that on their site. I think its more like..."hey..I am looking for a powder that can give me 1200 FPS in a 124 grain bullet, where do I start and what is a good powder for this"?
I think you can, however, make correlations to accuracy if you look at large group samples as you mentioned.
I think you can, however, make correlations to accuracy if you look at large group samples as you mentioned.
The point of the pages you posted links to are about primers and accuracy. The point of this thread is about lead free primers.
My comments still stand.
9MMand223only
New member
HI, I just looked again. Looks like 10 shot groups, 3 different 10 shot groups. Thats 30 shots to sample.
Also, SD and ES are not that much of a factor in pistol shooting. If a 10 shot group does SD of 7, and a 15 shot group is 9, that means literally nothing in accuracy mathematically.
Any shot group has a correlation to accuracy, because no matter how many shots you take, the group cannot get smaller, only larger.
Also, SD and ES are not that much of a factor in pistol shooting. If a 10 shot group does SD of 7, and a 15 shot group is 9, that means literally nothing in accuracy mathematically.
Any shot group has a correlation to accuracy, because no matter how many shots you take, the group cannot get smaller, only larger.
Jim Watson
New member
I read that they developed it for a fat government contract in lead free.
Your reading comprehension sucks. Read it again. http://www.natoreloading.com/primer1/
The three different groups (with the same primer) are three different charge weights, AND three different bullets.
That puts it back to a single 10-shot sample.
9MMand223only
New member
BTW, that link with the 15 shot groups? The method they uses is NOWHERE NEAR as precise as what natoreloading used. Nowhere near. And you can tell this from their standard deviation and extreme spread numbers.
So its 10 shot groups, 3 "different" 10 shot groups. Ill take note and remember when I do testing to shoot 15 different 15 shot groups, otherwise you won't approve and say its flawed.
BTW, 15 shot groups are flawed too, because you could do 1 group, that is 100+ shots instead huh?
So its 10 shot groups, 3 "different" 10 shot groups. Ill take note and remember when I do testing to shoot 15 different 15 shot groups, otherwise you won't approve and say its flawed.
BTW, 15 shot groups are flawed too, because you could do 1 group, that is 100+ shots instead huh?
Last edited:
Incorrect and irrelevant. We can't control the standard deviation (SD) or extreme spread (ES). It is what it is. Some powders tend to have narrow SD and ES, some powders tend to have wide SD and ES.
And the SD and ES will not be exactly the same from one 15-shot group to another even when shooting the exact same ammo. That is clearly demonstrated at the American Handgunner link.
Groups can be any number of rounds, 5, 10, 20, 100, whatever. But you need more than 1 group for the test at the American Handgunner link.
A good way to be consistent with the experimental design, is to make all the groups have the same number of shots (e.g. 15), which is what the author at the American Handgunner link did.
That author was testing a specific hypothesis; is group size correlated with velocity standard deviation or extreme spread. To do this test, one needs to shoot multiple groups (samples), at least 2 for correlation statistical analysis (e.g. two 15-shot groups would be 2 samples), and the more samples you have, the more confident you are in the results from statistical analysis.
The author had two independent sets of data, one with 20 samples (twenty 15-shot groups; 300 rounds) and the other set of data had 12 samples (twelve 15-shot groups; 180 rounds).
To recap, that author found no correlation between group size and velocity SD or ES.
9MMand223only
New member
Please consider this.
SD and ES was thought to not matter in that article. His ES and SD were not good, and were erratic at best. His group sizes were severely erratic in size.
This is a very important question I am about to ask.
Why does POI (point of impact) change sometimes from left to right, NOT just up and down, with different powder charges?
SD and ES was thought to not matter in that article. His ES and SD were not good, and were erratic at best. His group sizes were severely erratic in size.
This is a very important question I am about to ask.
Why does POI (point of impact) change sometimes from left to right, NOT just up and down, with different powder charges?