Dogchaser knows the answer to this, although I cannot remember for sure which way it was. I think you are correct and the fed was always hotter than the cci. If he doesn't respond, shoot him a PM and I am sure he would let you know. He did a lot of testing with these two.

Also, I got a chuckle out of "about 378" lol

 

Dogchaser would be the one to ask. CCI has had a varied primer history. CCI 209's made before Federal owned them were different than today's CCI 209. I'm assuming the CCI 209M came out after Federal (technically ATK) bought them, but I could be wrong. The only reason I bring this up is data from 1991 stating a CCI 209 is not comparable with a CCI 209 from 1999. I can only assume the CCI 209M would be the same. I want to say ATK bought CCI somewhere in the 1998-2000 time frame.

 

The CCI209M is not as hot as the Federal 209A.

CCI209M's have been around since Blount owned CCI, which is at least 30 years. I would have to look it up, but it was way before ATK bought CCI.

 

Blount has owned CCI far longer than 30 years. It might be the 1930s or even earlier. Blount got started in the ammo business through the construction business. Blount had difficulty procuring blanks for riveting so bought a company to make them. That spun off to 22 rimfire ammo to further profit from the blank side of the business.

I believe this came from John Barsness in an article of his. I don't remember for sure but I'm pretty sure it was through company literature.

As a general rule the CCI magnums will be slightly cooler than 209As but I have seen some recipes where the roles were reversed. Mainly in 410 where even Winchester 209s produced higher pressures than 209As in some loads so it would behoove one to make an effort to find a comparison load if pressures are approaching max. If in the ~9000 psi range I wouldn't think twice regarding a substitution in 12 ga.

 

Sorry for my unclear and possibly confusing response. I have no idea how long CCI was owned by Blount but that wasn't what I was referring to.

What I meant was that CCI209M primers have been made for over 30 years, back to when Blount still owned them. Now that I look around CCI209M's have been made for at least 40 years. They showed up in the Lyman 3rd which was 1984 but after the Lyman 2nd which was 1976.

Primers do change how they act in certain loads. You can't look at a .410 load and extrapolate or infer any information and move it over to a 12 gauge load. When primers "appear" to change positions it happens because the hotter primer bumps the crimp a bit before the powder gets burning and produces a bit more room for the powder gas to expand into and the chamber pressure actually drops a little. This also happens in some of the lighter target loads, even in 12 gauge. With the .410 this is why there used to be primers made just for the .410, and there still are, we just don't get to buy them any more.

As far as the load in question goes which is posted on the Alliant website. Alliant will tell you not to swap primers unless the chamber pressure of the original load is 8,500 PSI or less. IMHO this is pretty much a company line to keep them out of court.

You have to make up your own mind whether this is a safe swap or not.

If this were me I'd try the CCI209M and find out how it chronographed and go from there.

 

Blount owned Federal in the 1990s

1946: Blount Brothers go into the contracting business.
1951: The Blounts begin to land more complex military construction projects.
1968: Co-founder Winton Blount is named U.S. Postmaster General.
1971: Blount becomes a Delaware corporation.
1972: Blount, Inc. goes public after acquiring J.P. Burroughs & Sons.
1985: Blount acquires Omark Industries of Portland, Oregon.
1994: Blount exits the construction business to focus on manufacturing.
1997: Federal Cartridge is acquired.
1999: Lehman Brothers acquires Blount in a leveraged buy-out (LBO).
2001: Federal Cartridge sold to Alliant Techsystems (ATK).

Blount International, Inc. -- Company History

www.company-histories.com

History

CCI Ammunition

www.cci-ammunition.com

 

No primer is interchangeable with another. And it is not possible to generalize about primer hotness because primers behave differently with different powders. Some powders that appear "hot' or cool with a flake powder might perform the opposite with a ball powder.

 

Yeah, no, maybe.

True that no two primers brands deliver the same exact internal ballistics.

Primers have a definite rank in order of "hotness" or brisance.

The primers that were/are designed/manufactured in the USA will perform well with most of the double base powders. They all perform close to their "hotness' ranking with very few exceptions when using either single base or double base powders (ball powders included). The exceptions being some light target loads and some .410 loads, as has already been discussed.

Cheddite primers are in the same category as the US made primers, meaning they will perform well with the double base powders.

The remainder of the Euro primers, perform well with the powders they were designed for, which are mainly single base powders. Pair them with the US made double base powders and it doesn't always work out so well, especially in cold weather.

I have to disagree that primer performance jumps around depending on which powder is being used.....it really doesn't.

 

I think I'm going to try it Dogchaser. No worries on your end, you did not load it.

Yes, the primers I got are CCI209M from the early nineties. I was using them with a load out of Lyman's 3rd. 1-1/4 ounce in a Rem. SP12 wad at about 1,300 fps pushed with SR7625. It was a fine load but the powder is discontinued, which is a shame because SR7625 was a very versatile powder. It's almost as much of a shame as me using those 1-1/4 ounce 7-1/2 loads on grouse when I was a kid.

Yep, darn shame. It took over a decade before I found out the grouse taste better when you shoot 'em with 3/4 ounce 7-1/2, preferably out of a 28ga.

Thanks Dogchaser.

And thanks all the other members present for putting in your two cents.