They do not sell the 686 anymore to my knowledge, I still have about 8k of the 686's, they work great in warm weather, but when the temps drop below 45 degrees, they get poofy, I call them my summer primers.


cdb

 

The older 686 is an energetically mild primer. The current 688 is a midrange energy primer.

Games like primer energy level comparison can have negative consequences because the comparisons are speculative and inconsistent (with no true energy pecking order consistency possible to pin down, particularly for those primers within the midrange), but with that said, I'd at least tentatively consider the NS 688 to seem 'relatively' closer to a Win. 209 than to a Cheddite 209.

 

If you just ordered the NSI 209's they will be 688's. I have them also.
For comparison it really comes down to the load you're making. How close it is to max pressure and the powder.
I have seen enough load data tables and test results published on this forum that I feel confident substituting a Cheddite 2000CX for a Win 209. When you cross reference the results published here by forum members with published results, they're pretty close to the same. The results I've seen for the NSI primers place them with the Cheddite's, but slightly lower, as a substitute for a Win 209.
I wish I knew a single source you could go to, but I do not. I use the load data tables from the Alliant website and Hodgdon website to compare the differences when different primers are used. It's tedious. I'll also bounce them against the Lyman's 5th edition I have, and as I stated, individual forum member here that have been gracious enough to publish their test results that they paid for.
It is tedious to pour through those load tables and make comparisons, but that's the only way I know how to do it.
I've never tried to compare a Fiocchi to a Win 209. The physical primer size, slightly larger in diameter, made it not usable data for me. I use them in Fiocchi hulls for hunting loads.

 

NS209 refers to the Noble Sport 688.

 

I copied this posting awhile ago. I use the 688’s almost exclusively for 12 gauge. My only issue is 1 out of every 50 flash hole covers is missing. I save them for flake powders

 

I copied this posting awhile ago. I use the 688’s almost exclusively for 12 gauge. My only issue is 1 out of every 50 flash hole covers is missing. I save them for flake powders

I've noticed the missing flash hole covers as well. I keep some facial tissue and a thin wire on my bench. I tear off a small piece of tissue and lightly stuff it in the flash hole using the wire. It takes but a second to do it. For awhile I would mark those primers with a Sharpie to see if there were any issues with the primers I so treated. There were no issues noted. All such loads performed very well. No perceivable difference.

I have loaded 20,000 + rounds with NS688 primers (12 ga and .410) and I use Winchester 209 primer data. They work well for me and my Browning/Miroku shotguns don't pierce them.

 

I just remember reading on Lymans years ago that the covers were for ball powders. I think i will load a bunch up and check if they are fine with perfect pattern

 

Hi mate,

What powders are you planning to use?

I've been using 686"s and 688's with various powders and have had results where the primer did make a difference.

If only we had a way to pressure test loads eh!

Paul

 

APS350 in 12 Gauge target loads, mainly 3/4oz, but also 1oz. Mainly Win CF hulls
AP70N and Nobel 64 in 20 Gauge loads both 3/4ox and 7/8oz. Mainly Win CF and HS hulls.

I have found no perceivable difference between FIO 616 and Win 209 in these applications. (Or a few thousand Vihtavouri that I still have)

Old IMI #2 are way milder.
Cheddite CX2000 seem a little bit hotter... maybe...?

First time I have got my hands on some NS 688.

I found reloading data from the USA that lists 'Clays' powder and that data suggests NS209 are the same as Win 209, but I dont know if that data was produced with NS686 or NS688??

Answers here so far suggest that it was probably NS688 and that primer is very close to Win209.

Yes, I used to be able to get some load data worked up by ADI, but they seem to have completely lost the plot now. They have not even done any data for 20G and their new APS650, and respond that they don't intend to in the foreseeable future!!!!! That just piss-poor (and irresponsible) IMHO!

 

I've run well over 10,000 NS primers through my MECs. I haven't had a FTF yet. Flash hole covers are merely decorative.

 

Flash hole covers are merely decorative.

Since they add cost and machining stations, that can't be true.

 

Before the 688 started to show up, I was using 686, which I am pretty sure are the same as the old Martingoni 686, and possibly the Vihtavouri. Which were swapped with Winchesters at will. All safely exchanged with Red Dot, AS30N and AS50.

I am using some PSB1 in 32g, and the 688 made a massive difference to powder burn, much more complete. I wish we could get shells tested, and am envious (and grateful for the info you have shared) of your previous ability to get ammo tested by ADI.

As far as ADI doing any useful testing, I'm pretty sure they don't give a rats about reloaders and I am of the view that they send components to the USA somewhere to have the testing done. Poorly as well. The reason for this is that it took many many months to get data for the APS powders after they were released, and the fact that a lot of the data is using components that have never been available here.

I am quite sure that you will be fine using 688 primers for your APS350 loads, I have with no problem at all.

I haven't played with a 20g so not sure there, but as usual, if you aren't loading near maximum, all should be fine.

And don't forget, the original ADI Handbooks had the vague parameters of Compression Formed Case or Riefehauser, Shot weight, Powder type and Weight, Some Wad details, and Primers were grouped together.

Certainly not the "use the wrong crimp depth and the world will cave in" mentallity that is around these days.

I also have quite a bit of Nobel 78, 60 and 64, but only the data from the tins. If you have anything that you think may be of assistance, I would gladly love to see it.

Trapshooters reloading page has a place where people post tested loads, you may gleen some info from there also.

Regards,

Paul

 

Sent you a message. re Nobel Powders.