This maybe a question that Frank will have much imput on as I believe he is an advocate of the Remington 2 1/2 primer in the 32-40 / smokeless loads. 

I came across an article in the April 2005 Precision Shooting magazine about Adolph Niedner's 32-40 Ballard Schutzen rifle. The author tells how he uses Remington 2 1/2 primers in shooting that rifle with both 4227 and AA#9 powder. My experince with 4227 in the 32-40 started with a Stevens 44 so I kept the powder charges low and used a SAECO #632 bullet breech seated. At a powder charge of 12.5 grains I found my best accuracy. I then tried several different primers and found that the Federal 210 std LR was burning the 4227 the cleanest. There was far less semi-burned power crumbs left in the bore after a shot with the Federal 210 primers than other primers tested. I have to say that I didn't fire those test over the chronograph but did note the accuracy was better with the Federal 210 LR primer than the rest. I have stuck with it since then. 

More recently I have aquired a Stevens 44 1/2 in 32-40 and found that accuracy with it is much better with a 13.5 grain charge of IMR4227 than the 12.5 grain load I use in the Stevens 44. Maybe I'm being a little on the safe side not boosting the powder charge in the 44 above the 12.5 grain load, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. After all I'm looking for accuracy and at a safe pressure for this fine old Stevens 44.

In the afore mentioned article the author mentions he used AA#9 powder in Niedner's old Ballard with bullets approx. 190 grains. Correct me if I'm wrong here but the Ballard actions are just as frail and weak as the Stevens 44, and if so I should be able to use that AA#9 at 12.0 grains safely in my Stevens 44 with 170 grain breech seated bullet. If you agree or not please advise your thoughts.

Also would like to know why some favor the Remington #2 1/2 primer?

                               Thanks, Sendaro 

Some rifles are primer sensitive and some are not. Some like large rifle primers - some like large pistol primers.  I think a lot of this has to do with the firing pin strike; which, in turn, has to do with the size, shape, and protrusion of the firing pin as well as the mass of the hammer and the weight of the mainspring. 

For example, I have a .32-40 CPA that responds well to pistol primers at light mainspring settings and responds well to rifle primers at heavier settings.  However, the rifles overall preference is Federal 210 GMM primers regardless of powder choice.

I also have a .32-40 FBW rifle that performs best with Federal 155 GMM magnum pistol primers and Rem 2 1/2 large pistol primers.  This rifle does not do as well with any large rifle primers.

It's my personal belief that one cannot make general statements about the performance of primers in any given breech-seating application.  Try a bunch of different primers and see what the rifle likes best.

JackHughs

frnkeore wrote on Mar 7^th, 2014 at 12:34am:


Hi Frank,

My only experience with 4759 was for cast bullet loads for .30-06 and didn't have much luck at that.

I've never tried it in a breech-seating application because it doesn't meter well through a Harrell's measure and I've grown too lazy to weigh charges.

JackHughs   

If it's in a metal can, no problem, it's 4227. If it's in a Hodgdon plastic jug, look on the label, if it says made in Canada, it's real 4227, if AUS, it's H4227.

Frank

I've used the old IMR 4227 and Hodgdon 4227 and Hodgdon IMR 4227.  Some of the Hodgdon 4227 was not coated like original IMR. (was a puky green color) Cost less than Original IMR. Same goes for Hodgdon and IMR 4895. Have no idea which is in the plastic Hodgdon plastic containers now. Seems to perform exactly like the original IMR 4227 for me, and looks like original IMR. 

For IMR 4759, I would be more inclined to use the hottest primers I could find. My experience with it was, it is very accurate when a wad is used. After a couple hundred or so rounds the case had to be scraped clean. Would get so dirty my de-capping rod wouldn't go in the case or would get stuck in the case when de-priming.  Used IMR 4759 for a short time only.  Amazing how much crud it leaves in the case. 

         Joe.

I think that the underlying reason most people use pistol primers is light hammer fall. With rifles that have old springs that have lost a little of their ginger they still set off both rifle and pistol primers but they don’t set off the harder rifle primers reliably. Years ago I was having trouble with my load it was shooting erratically and I couldn’t figure out why. A friend asked what primers I was using in my Stevens. I told him 210Ms he asked if I had tried stiffening the spring. He showed me how and we put a turn on the adjustment screw. The accuracy came right back. It was a lesson I never forgot. 
  As to loads I have used up to 14.6 grains of 4227 in forged frame Ballards and have experienced no ill effects. I can’t say about the 44 I don’t know if your action is the heavier style with the lug or standard. I have also heard of 44s pins loosening up with heavier loads so I can’t speak to the 44.

40 Rod

I have also heard rumors of the shorter pistol primers hammering and damaging the faces of breach blocks thus I have always strayed away from there use. The 4227 of new is not the same as the old and there are now better powder choices out there. I look at our club as being up there with the more competitive any sight benchrest clubs accross the nation and I know of no one currently who is using the 4227 with good success. In regards to which primer might be best I believe Jack Hughes hit the nail on the head.

JLouis

JLouis wrote on Mar 7^th, 2014 at 10:07am:


I destroyed the stock firing pin bushing on a FBW rifle using large pistol primers.   

As I discovered later, the stock FBW bushing is made of soft steel.  After being battered by large pistol primers for a few years, the face of the bushing cratered to point that the breechblock would not open.

A friend made a custom hardened bushing and that problem has not resurfaced.

JackHughs