That data simply doesn't exist.

 

Found this on SGW, loads more info with a Google search.

https://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewto ... 3&t=334500

Scroll down, there is a list for what its worth.

Steve

 

The Federals are little hotter. Look at the Hodgon's reloading data and otherwise identical loads (same AA hull, AA wad, 1oz. shot load and Clays powder) take a about a 1/2 grain less of Clays with the Fed 209A as opposed to the Win 209 primer for a load getting 1180 fps. The loads with the Federal primer also generate a little more pressure.

 

Found this on SGW, loads more info with a Google search.

https://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewto ... 3&t=334500

Scroll down, there is a list for what its worth.

Steve

Copied and pasted from the above referenced thread. This makes sense per the Hodgon's data. When I did a lot of reloading I would switch from Win to CCI primers without adjusting my powder drop. I'm not surprised to find them close on this ranking.

From mildest to hottest:

1. Rem 209 STS,
2. CCI 209,
3. Winchester 209,
4. Noble Sport 209,
5. Cheddite 209,
6. Fiocchi 209,
7. CCI 209M,
8. Federal 209A.
Above found on this forum. Floyd in Vienna

 

Here are the entire search results for "Brisance" in the reloading section of shotgun world, topics searched only, not posts.

https://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/search ... mit=Search

From what I gather the only way to conclusively determine a primer's ignition qualities is to put it behind the powder used. The ignition will vary from powder to powder and from gauge to gauge as well. Ballistic Products Inc claims that the 28ga and the .410 bore are particularly primer sensitive.

But educated guesses are possible. Winchester 209's are relatively "hot" and can be saftely substituted with just about anything other than Federal 209A's or possibly Cheddite primers both of which are generally hotter. For lower pressure target type loads in twelve gauge the primer does not seem to matter much, IMO, for higher pressure loads use the correct primer.

 

And idea where the old Federal 209s (pre 209A) would fall in the lineup?

 

Old FED209 (not FED209A) are similar to WIN209.

In the above 1-10 list, I would move all euro primers down around the REM209. I don't believe any euro primer is as "hot" as a WIN209 with the possible exception of the RIO209. On a lot of boards, Ched209 is routinely swapped for WIN209 and considered an equal.

In fact any rating of primer "hotness" is more subjective than whether the girl next door is hot. She is!

 

The Federal 209 was just a bit hotter than the CCI209M.

 

It has been a long time since I read anything on the subject. I think Tom Armsbrust did some tests and/or wrote something on the subject. I believe I read somewhere that there was more to it than just the Brisance. I think such things as the burn time, heat of the flame etc. can make a difference.

 

Even though we rank primers, the big differences don't always show up in target loads.

Someone posted that there was .5 grain difference in powder between primers. Well that difference can be a lot more (as in 3 to 5 grains different) to the point of some of the 'cooler' primers even a Winchester 209 not being able to light off large amounts of some of the slower burning powders, especially when the weather gets cold.

Target loads, for the most part don't always show "real" differences.

Someone mentioned that 28 and .410 loads can be primer sensitive and that is true. "Hot" primers can and do pop the crimp sometimes before the powder charge gets going, which creates consistency problems with the load.

Federal and Remington used to offer primers just for .410 loads.

 

The problem with any list is are you looking at is are the primers ranked:

1, 2, 3, 4, ect

or

1, 2.7, 7, 20.1485, ect

The answer will be closer to the 2nd line than the first, since there is no standard unit by which these are measured or deviate. You simply cannot say one primer is X% more or less powerful when compared to another.

 

Tom Roster once grouped them into -

Hot,

Cool - 410 primers,

Medium - Everything else.

 

Dogchaser, I have 3000 of the old red box Federal 209 primers. I read somewhere that they were pretty much a substitute for Win 209s. Sounds like that may not be the case

 

I think Tom Armsbrust did some tests and/or wrote something on the subject.

I don't know if this is what you're thinking of, but maybe it will help answer the OP's question.

http://www.armbrust.acf2.org/primersubs.htm

 

The problem with any list is are you looking at is are the primers ranked:

1, 2, 3, 4, ect

or

1, 2.7, 7, 20.1485, ect

The answer will be closer to the 2nd line than the first, since there is no standard unit by which these are measured or deviate. You simply cannot say one primer is X% more or less powerful when compared to another.

Go here and scroll to the last post and study the testing ADI did https://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewto ... 3&t=334500

I would say thats a pretty good 1,2,3,4 list.

Steve

 

The problem with any list is are you looking at is are the primers ranked:

1, 2, 3, 4, ect

or

1, 2.7, 7, 20.1485, ect

The answer will be closer to the 2nd line than the first, since there is no standard unit by which these are measured or deviate. You simply cannot say one primer is X% more or less powerful when compared to another.

Go here and scroll to the last post and study the testing ADI did https://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewto ... 3&t=334500

I would say thats a pretty good 1,2,3,4 list.

Steve

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

A 1, 2, 3, 4 list implies that each step is an equal amount of change from the last, meaning that list rates, linearly, the "heat" or "power factory" of a primer. IE, #2 is 3% less powerful than #1, #3 is 3% less powerful than #2

More realistically you'd expect to see that #2 is identical to #1, #3 is 3% less powerful than #1 or #2, #4 is 1% less powerful than #3, ect.

That number simply isn't quantifiable at this point, especially since there isn't even an agreed up on unit with which we can quantify "hotness" of a primer. Once you come up with a unit of measure, then you can build a rig capable of taking that measurement, then you can actually make a legitimate comparison between primers. Then again, no one will because that data and answer is completely pointless, since even WITH that data, you can't interpret or extrapolate ANYTHING from it in terms of reloading recipes, which is why we use loading manuals.

 

The ADI list itself proves there is no way to draw a meaningful conclusion.

They ordered their list in the left 3 columns by velocity, and the right 3 columns by pressure. Note that the order is NOT the same in both sections. You have results with slower FPS and higher PSI, and higher FPS and lower PSI.

So are you rating primer "hotness" from that list in terms of PSI or FPS, because that list makes it very obvious you have to pick one of the two?

And that's only for one combination of hull, powder type, powder charge, wad, and shot charge. Change any of those variables and you'll come up with a COMPLETELY different list. Basically that list only allows you to compare primers in terms of that EXACT recipe, and you can't or at least shouldn't try to draw any inferences beyond that. If you really want an actual comparison of primers to one another, you need to test the primers by THEMSELVES, but as I said previously, you're basically left with useless information.

 

Per an executive of a powder company -

Determining a specific pressure number for a load well within the safe zone* is more statistics than ballistics.

*All the loads in the manuals are well within the safe zone.

 

Even though we rank primers, the big differences don't always show up in target loads.

Someone posted that there was .5 grain difference in powder between primers. Well that difference can be a lot more (as in 3 to 5 grains different) to the point of some of the 'cooler' primers even a Winchester 209 not being able to light off large amounts of some of the slower burning powders, especially when the weather gets cold.

Target loads, for the most part don't always show "real" differences.

Someone mentioned that 28 and .410 loads can be primer sensitive and that is true. "Hot" primers can and do pop the crimp sometimes before the powder charge gets going, which creates consistency problems with the load.

Federal and Remington used to offer primers just for .410 loads.

Yes.

The "real" differences, such as any are, are NOT going to show up behind Clays, Red Dot, Promo, etc, etc, etc.

They will show up in cold weather lighting big piles of slow-burners, Blue Dot, Longshot, HS6 & 7, etc, and lighting the "Magnum Pistol Powders" used in 28 and .410 (296/110, 4100, 300MP, and so on).

 

These charts showing the differences with primers, are not there to be used as gospel with every load. They were done to show that there is a difference, not to illustrate how much of a difference.

Every different set of components will show a different outcome and can even illustrate a different 'ranking' of the primers.

There is nothing linear about ballistics.

So instead of just looking at the charts that Tom Armbrust presents in his article and coming to a half baked conclusion......READ the article. It explains the exact same thing I have been trying to explain about primers and powders and what happens as you work with powders with slower burn rates.

I understand that folks want to see a primer chart annnddddd.......... a Federal 209A will create 1,500 more PSI than a Winchester 209 according to this primer chart, so any load that I want to use a Federal 209A primer instead of the Winchester 209 that is specified it will raise the pressure 1,500 PSI.....NO.......it doesn't work like that.....stick to the loading data.

 

"Brisance" is not a concept that can be applied to primers. A given primer might perform differently with different powders. For instance, many think the Fed 209A is the "hottest," but with some powders, it's not the case. Ball powders from the St. Marks powder plant exhibit different primer performance when compared to flake powders from either Alliant or the General Dynamics plant in Canada.

 

In some loads the Federal 209A actually produces less pressure than WW 209, can't lay my hands on that just this second but back some years when I was obsessed with shotgun loads and the effects of different components it wasn't hard to find data that seemed to defy the logical conclusions. Realize I am making that statement based on published load data from lots and lots of different sources, I don't have a pressure lab. Using all those sources of supposedly lab tested pressure data adds a whole new perspective on the effects of different components on pressure and performance of the simple, lowly shotgun shell. Every thing just isn't what you're sure it'll be all the time. I do take a few liberties with loads now and again, but........, it's not for the lack of study.

BP

 

Forget "Brisance" rankings and follow the recipes published by the powder companies. (They have "more skin in the game"!)

 

Forget "Brisance" rankings and follow the recipes published by the powder companies. (They have "more skin in the game"!)

That's excellent advice and should be obvious for any and every reloader. One should always follow a recipe published by the powder mfg. My take on this thread was that the OP was curious which of the two primers he mentioned was hotter/more powerful. That question has been answered.

 

That's fine & dandy if you can get the primer called for in the data. Some substitutions are safe. The trick is to know when they can safely be used.