Federal reformulating it's primers?

[9MMand223only]

No, your personal experience.

This can be summed up simply by saying that the gunner article/test is majorly flawed because they did not use consistent components. It is nothing to say "oh, I ordered some starline brass and Zero bullets and we used that". That means nothing. What matters is the consistency OF those components, and every brand does NOT have precise consistency, so you must group it.

By just tossing a bag of bullets from a brand and a bag of brass, then just metering the powder, you are in essence tossing out the window, 3 controls.
BRass
Powder
BUllet
All 3 causes differences in pressure, thus causes SD and ES to vary. By not making all 3 of those uniform, you can't really test anything with any validity because there is no controls in place.
Same lot brass has wild variances in internal capacity.

you could do 6.2 grains power pistol in 1 case, and then 6.0 grains power pistol from the same lot of cases, and you could get the SAME velocity.

That test proves my theory they didn't have controls because the size of the groups is horrendously variable. The group sizes range all over the place and so does the SD, and ES. Of course they would, they didnt have any controls in place and all the components were not uniform.

THEN, I go over to look at the nato place, and their SD across 10 shot groups, over 100 shots total is ~4 SD? With some less than 4? The reason they got such low SD and consistency is because they have controls in place, the article you linked, did not.

The reason I ask you about POI shifts, is because you do know, everyone knows that loads, that POI shift between loads is normal. You will have POI shift from shooting 6 grains of PP and 5.8 or 6.0 grains. THUS, SD does matter, and ES matters too. Because the top of the spectrum ES shot has a totally different POI than the low end of the spectrum ES shots, etc.

That article does not account for this, and doesn't understand why bullets hit the same POI. The author I am guessing, is not a benchrest shooter and does not reload for accuracy because the test they did, I could have told you would not yield consistent results before they started. Its severely flawed from have no controls in place.

I hope that helps. When thse federal primers come out, I am sure they will be tested. And I will bet they are not as consistent as normal primers.

 

[74A95]

9mmand223only, the two websites are not trying to do the same thing.

The natoreloading site is testing primers. But I suggest their accuracy testing is not up to standards that would give their results any merit. Serious accuracy testing with a handgun should be done at at least 25 yards, if not fifty. They use 10 yards. Serious accuracy testing should not involve a human holding the gun, using the sights, and pulling the trigger. All of those are potential sources of error. A machine rest, such as a Ransom Rest or better yet, a barrel fixture, is the proper tool. And 10 shots is not a serious accuracy test. They would have seen different group sizes if they fired another 10-shot group with the same ammo. Check out any accuracy test in published articles where they fired more than one group with the same ammo. The groups are not the same size, and can vary 2-, 3-, 4-fold or more. That’s just reality. And that’s why i posted the link to the american handgunner article. It shows the variation in group size and velocity SD & ES. But any other published article would do the same thing.

The natoreloading site folks are not exactly ammo experts. They say that the Berry’s bullet is the only plated bullet in the test. Wrong. The Speer 124 grain TMJ is a plated bullet, too. Also, the important variable in using cases that are the “same” for accuracy testing, is that they have the same volume. Case volume affects the size of the powder chamber, and differences in powder chamber affect pressure. They measured case weight, not the volume. This is a common mistake, but science 101 says you should measure the thing you’re trying to measure, not something else and ASSUME it’s the same thing. It isn’t. Their cases might have had the same volume. We’ll never know because they didn’t measure it.



The american handgunner link looks at something completely different. As stated before, it tests a specific hypothesis; is group size correlated with velocity standard deviation or extreme spread?

The variation in group size and SD and ES is a good thing for that test. Please stop whining about it. It’s necessary for the numbers to have some variation in order to be statistically distinguishable. The author explains that in the article. Here is what it says, “How many shots should be in the group? Five? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? I don’t think there is a magic number as long as both the group sizes and velocity spreads have enough variation they don’t look the same and are statistically distinguishable. For example, if all the groups measure the same size, then the variation in velocity can’t distinguish between them.“ He’s measuring two variables required in order to do a, “Pearson correlation coefficient statistical test comparing group size to the standard deviation of the velocity.” He doesn’t care what the velocity spread is. He doesn’t care what the group size is. All he wants are numbers to do the statistical test.

He’s not trying to shoot small groups. Group size does not matter. He’s not trying to shoot groups the same size. He’s not trying to get the velocity SD and ES to be the same for all the groups. I guess you missed that. You say it’s a bad thing but the author says it’s a good thing. All you accomplish by complaining about the american handgunner article is provide proof that you don’t understand the purpose of that article, even though the author explains what the purpose is.

It doesn’t matter if the cases in the american handgunner article have differences in capacity. The important things to measure are the velocity and group size. It doesn’t matter what might account for the differences in velocity. The velocity is a measured variable and it defines the SD and ES, and as noted, variation here is good.

 

[9MMand223only]

Hi,

Actually, the Speer TMJ is not plated, your thinking of CPRN or something. TMJ is jacketed, just not "full" its jacket ends at base.

So I have to correct you there. nato site is correct.

"TMJ
Unlike conventional FMJ bullets that leave lead exposed at the base, the TMJ® bullet's lead core is encased in a seamless jacket. It’s cleaner, more accurate and more consistent than any FMJ. "

U are also incorrect when you said nato site didn't measure internal case volume. It clearly says they do, perhaps you missed that. Every case was measured by internal volume, you can clearly see this in the data. It even says right on the target, the internal case volume was right near 13.00 grains. If you look at more of their tests, they list internal case volume on many things in their tests. They are measuring it, but it looks like they start out by sorting by weight, which is the obvious step.

Seems like you are incorrect on almost every point your making?

I will drop a quick e-mail to Speer though, let them know stop advertising TMJ as jacketed, and let them know its plated. I am sure they would like to correct this, they don't want to mislead you on purpose.

 

[74A95]

I stand corrected on the case volume. I didn't see that detail in their pictures. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, the Speer TMJ bullets are plated.

Your description contradicts Speer’s description. You say the TMJ bullets are not full jackets, that its jacket ends at the base. But your quote from Speer says the bullet is encased in a seamless jacket. The base of Speer TMJ bullets is covered with that seamless copper plating.

I have Speer 124 TMJ bullets (catalog # 3993) and others. They’re plated; the plating forms a complete, seamless copper coating all over the bullet, including the base.

FMJ bullets have the traditional 2-part cup and core design with an exposed lead base.

The full quote of what Speer says is at this kink:

https://www.speer-ammo.com/products/bullets/handgun-bullets/tmj-handgun-bullet/3993

Speer uses their Uni-Cor technology for the TMJ and Gold Dot HP bullets. Both are plated.

How Speer describes it in their Loading Manual #14 page 729:

“Speer’s Uni-Cor bullets incorporate a process that builds a true jacket through the electro-chemical bonding of pure copper to a lead core. This bond makes core-jacket separation virtually impossible.

Each bullet begins as a swaged lead core. The lead alloy is chosen for the specific use of the bullet. Expanding bullets have a soft lead core; a harder core is used for target bullets. After swaging and cleaning, the cores are placed in a computer-controlled electro-chemical plating system to receive the copper jacket literally one molecule at a time. Jacket thickness ranges from 0.007 inches to over 0.030 inches depending on the bullet’s intended use. Because of the slow and carefully controlled copper deposition, jackets are tougher and more concentric giving bullet integrity not possible with conventional jacketed bullets. …

Uni-Cor technology is literally at the core of every Speer Gold Dot, TMJ, and Uni-Cor expanding bullet. …. “

Hope that clears it up.

 

[Unclenick]

I think you guys are mixing apples and oranges. The new Federal primer (subject of this thread) is not a DDNT primer like the other commercial non-toxic primers all are (AFAIK). That's critical. The problem that introduces inaccuracy with DDNT primers has nothing to do with SD. It has to do with ignition delay. See figure 4 of this study. Ignition delays far in excess of gun lock time can be observed in DDNT primers, giving plenty of time for the shooter's muscle contractions to move the muzzle enough to widen groups. It takes perfect trigger control and follow-through to shoot well with them. Most people are not that good and most will be prone to getting wider groups from them.

As to Federal's claim for shelf life, it may be possible for it to be equal for marketing purposes, but lead styphnate does not undergo spontaneous break-down at the same rate nitrocellulose does. In useful forms, it can survive unchanged at 200°C and be stored under water for 12 months without showing evidence of deterioration or picking up a significant amount of water. So it can theoretically last centuries in cool and dry environments. Nitrocellulose does not stand up to such high temperatures and absorbs water when submerged. So I'm not sure what Federal is basing the equivalent life claim on. I'll have to ask them, but lead styphnate is intrinsically more rugged and stable than nitrocellulose. Being developed for the military, the new primer will presumably have to survive at least 45 years in stockpiles.

 

[TRX]

Chlorate primers, as far as is known, will last forever. And they're consistent across wide temperature ranges, cheap, and reliable. Which is why some countries still load military ammunition with them.

The corrosion thing, on the other hand, puts a lot of people off...