Dysfunctional Remington 9-1/2 Primers

[Im_leary]

I am providing this information as a service to the members of the Benchrest Forums so please take these observations in the context intended... as information, not as a spark for a pissing-contest.

In summary (you may read the details in my attached letter to Remington) I purchased a brick of Remington 9-1/2 primers from my local dealer in December, 2007. I loaded 800 of these primers into .22-250 rounds over the next few months. When the weather improved to the point that I felt I could do some meaningful load testing, I took these rounds to the range for some intensive testing. What I found was 26 misfires in the first 132 rounds.

Additional relevant information is that the rifle is my old Winchester Model 70 National Match rifle. Prior to being a 22-250, it has worn four different .308 barrels. In the 12,000+ rounds of match competition and practice, it has never, ever, misfired. After I disassembled the balance of the 800 rounds loaded with the questionable lot of Remington 9-1/2 primers, I have loaded and fired 386 rounds. These 386 rounds were loaded using both a new lot of Remington 9-1/2 and Federal 210M primers. There were no misfires whatsoever.

In summary, every misfire encountered was with a round using a Remington 9-1/2 primer from lot #1502. There have been no other misfires before or since.

You will also find Remington's response to my letter attached. Essentially, Mr. Conrad said my gun is broken, have it checked by a gunsmith... and oh, here is $5.00 for your trouble. I called Mr. Conrad and asked him to share the findings of his investigation. Suffice to say, he would not answer my questions. When he reiterated his position that my gun was malfunctioning, I pointed out that his premise; that there is nothing wrong with lot# 1502, even though this malfunction happened 26 times and only when using lot #1502, he became quite angry. When I hung up the phone on him he was still ranting, "... if you know all those statistics, then I guess you know everything there is to know and...". In deference to Mr. Conrad, I do not know everything there is to know... but after spending an entire career as an engineer, I do know a modicum of the science of probability and statistics. That knowledge of statistics would lead me to believe that a 19.7% failure rate, with one specific lot of primers, and in light of a 0.0% failure rate exhibited before and after using that particular lot of primers, the chance that there is a problem with those primers is statistically significant.

 

[nonliberal]

Thats very interesting. I posted last month about that in a thread when 14 out of 50 loaded rounds failed to fire during a match. The rifle has never misfired before, and after I switched primers it has never misfired since. At least 500 rounds have been shot in that rifle since the misfires with Remington primers.

I still have the case with remaining primers in it but I guess the lot# was on the side I opened and threw away.

Heres that thread. http://www.benchrest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50282&highlight=remington+primers

 

[cannon30]

Remingtons rep

What has happened to Remington I can not get them to stand up for two bad xr100 .223 chambers that are bad. Sounds like they just dont care any more. In to days world that can cost a company.

 

[Yote]

What has happened to Remington I can not get them to stand up for two bad xr100 .223 chambers that are bad. Sounds like they just dont care any more. In to days world that can cost a company.

They're disconnected with the people that keep them in business.

They aren't listening to what the shooting public is telling them.

Savage is listening and reaping the rewards.

 

[cannon30]

This is why i asked pople to call remington. See threads "Call Remington" and "Yikes! XR100 Discontinued Pages 6 & 7". Remingtion has to learn that now days pople talk to each other and it is very public. And if you keep treating custmers this way they may find out that they dont have as many left. They Dont seem to Whant to fix any thing even when they agre it is bad like in my case.

 

[Im_leary]

In my humble opinion... Mr. Conrad was more than a little obfuscating. I just could not help but get the impression that something needed saying... but it was not going to get said.

I sure would like to know what the results of their testing told him. That, however, is not going to happen... ever!

 

[Yote]

In my humble opinion... Mr. Conrad was more than a little obfuscating. I just could not help but get the impression that something needed saying... but it was not going to get said.

I sure would like to know what the results of their testing told him. That, however, is not going to happen... ever!

I would have to write him a letter to let him know that I would be through with all things Remington. Rifles, brass, PRIMERS, etc.

 

[Im_leary]

Yote,

I thought of that... Problem is, if Remington stops making the 700 (even as sloppy as they have gotten), Savage might not try so hard to please us. Lets face it, they are the last two manufacturers making competitively priced bolt actions that can be (with considerable gunsmithing) made into accurate rifles.

I don't want to burn my bridges. I do, however, want Remington to step up and do right by their customers. And I don't think that the problem is with people like Mr. Conrad... the problem is with the Remington management. These guys (and gals) would fire him in a heartbeat if they thought he wasn't carrying the company line. I'm talking about the same kind of "firearms illiterate" no-accounts who were running Winchester in 1964 (or perhaps their kids). At any rate, the way they manage their companies seem to be the same. We, the consumers, don't need another "Winchester fiasco". And in an age of world-wide information sharing, we don't have to take this crap quietly.

 

[axlenut]

I deleted my first reply after another reading of Mr. Conrad's reply. I think that Remington did sufficient research on the problem at hand, and the problem may be with the rifle, as suggested. If the primers were still sensitive enough to fire after their examination, then the problem exists elsewhere (or is combination of factors between the primers, loading technique and the rifle). If the firing pin dent was shallow, then a check of firing pin protrusion, including inspection and cleaning of the bolt interior is in order.

Debris from powder residue and brass shavings in the locking lug recesses can prevent the bolt from coming into full battery just enough to cushion the firing pin fall. This is an erratic or intermittent condition. An improperly timed trigger can also effect the condition, as can a high trigger guard screw.

Brass shavings can be driven into a firing pin hole causing erratic behavior. I have even had a stuck firing pin cause full auto discharge from a Ruger Mini 14 - cleaning the bolt's interior of brass shavings generated by the extractor is now routine after firing that model. A bushed firing pin of smaller diameter is now part of my varmint rifle rebuilds.

A bent or worn reloading press linkage pin can also be a problem, where a primer seating depth stop is used. In this instance, the pin revolves and seats one or more primers shallow, thus absorbing firing pin impact as it is seated. Hand priming tools can also cause this problem - seating depth is a major contributor to erratic performance.

There are just too many variables here to say with any degree of certainty that the primers were wholly to blame. Remington's reply was neither abusive or inadequate, and seemed reasonable to my reading.

 

[Im_leary]

axlenut,

As soon as I got back from the range that day I fired several blank cases, each primed with Federal 210M and Winchester WLR. The pin dent is not only very deep, it drove the primer down into the pocket below the rim. When I deprimed these cases, I found that one side (and on one occasion, both sides) of the anvil were inside the cup. Needless to say, they all fired quite nicely.

I then took the gun to the fellow who put the barrel on. On removing the fire control from the bolt, he noted that it was completely clean. The only lubricant apparent was a very lite film (of a very lite oil) on the spring and pin assembly. There was grease only on the threads of the shroud, bolt body, and cocking nose (as there should be). Firing pin protrusion was measured at .059". The spring is a Tubbs Speedlock Systems 30# spring (a standard Winchester Model 70 SA spring is only 23#). No broken coils or other damage was found. Removing the spring from the fire control was so difficult (he does not own a Model 70 bolt tool) we decided to leave it alone. The firing pin is a Tubbs Speedlock Systems Titanium pin. Everything was found to be clean, correctly assembled, and in perfect working order.

Please read my letter to Remington. I tried to be clear: the gun has never, ever, done this before (for over 12,000 rounds) or since (now an additional 416 rounds). Also note that almost 100 of the post-problem shots were done with a new lot of Remington 9-1/2 primers. Everything is completely consistent with a problem with the 1502 primer lot. Incidentally, the SD of my best load (IMR-4320 and the Sierra 40gr HP) is 5.2 with Fed 210-M primers, 7.9 with WLR, and 12.2 with Rem 9-1/2. Ignition is very consistent.

Statistically, the premise that the rifle was malfunctioning only during the time that the lot 1502 primers were being used is... suffice it to say, my old HP-28s calculator will not display that many digits to the right of the decimal point. Furthermore; why is Remington not forthcoming with the details of their investigation? I want to know: What is the hardness of the cup material? Is it around B77 where is should be for C260 brass?, What was the primer cup diameter, depth and thickness? Were they all found to be within tolerance? The priming pellet was found to be viable in the primer with the .011 dent, but how about the others. He also (conveniently) forgot to mention anything about the three fired cases I provided (these were in addition to the five misfires). I mentioned them in my letter. Every single one of them (and every single round that I have fired since) has a very satisfactory primer dent. When I asked about that during our conversation, he promptly changed the subject.

Not to put too fine a point on it, I feel that I have done everything within reason to verify the efficacy of my equipment and ammunition components. I do not have the tools or the wherewithal to do the sort of testing necessary to determine if there is a problem with the one (and only) failed component. Remington does. Why won't they tell me, in detail, what they found? Oh... and Mr. Conrad's, "... here's five bucks for your trouble" crack was beyond the pale.

BTW: One point you mentioned, which I did not address above: I prime all of my brass with my trusty Lachmiller priming tool.

 

[sharpshooter]

Install the factory firing pin and spring and I'll bet your problem will disappear.
For some reason, alot of shooters think they need faster locktime, and they fall for the "speedlock gimmick". If it wasn't busted why fix it? Faster locktime can never take credit for winning a match, but consistant ignition can.

 

[rstreich]

I'm glad you added some more details, Im_leary. I was going to be a bit skeptical as my brother recently got a full refund for about 10K of Remington primers that went bad on him. He had to send them some to inspect, but the whole transaction was pretty smooth for him.

There was one comment in your post that seemed a bit troubling, however:

...The pin dent is not only very deep, it drove the primer down into the pocket below the rim.

I've never had a primer driven "down into the pocket" unless it wasn't properly seated to begin with. Is it possible that this batch of primers was a bit short and your priming method wasn't getting them completely seated? I ask only because I've had this happen myself. That could explain the light primer strikes that Remington measured.

 

[Im_leary]

rstreich,

Your observation got me wondering why this is. On rechecking my fired brass, I found that the primers driven below flush were only with the "blanks" that I fired (the rounds that I tested with only the primers, no powder or bullet). All of the other 400-some-odd empty cases from the live-rounds fired (which are still here on my reloading bench waiting for my attention) all have the back of the primer out flush with where the bolt-face would be.

Just to be sure that this is not a phenomenon unique to my old Winchester Model 70 match rifle, I just fired a few blanks out of my Remington 700 .308 (it just happened to be here on the bench waiting for a cleaning). I used the last of some WLR primers I had left over from some 6.5-284 ammo I was loading. Even though I seated all of the primers perfectly flush and bottomed of the cases, all of them were slightly below flush (some more, some less) after they were fired... just like on the Model 70. I can only guess that the 50,000 psi (or more) pressure in the case when a live round is fired keeps the primer tight against the bolt-face. Without the pressure, the firing pin pushes the primer cup into the case until it almost bottoms out in the primer pocket.

I also took some measurements of some of the primers I have on hand and found that they are not the same. For each of the three brands I checked, I simply slid back the outer box-cover far enough to allow 10 primers to fall out onto a clean folded paper towel. I then picked up each one with pin-tweezers, touching only the sides of the primer, and measured them with my Starrett No. 216 micrometer. This is what I found:

Federal 210-M: Max height (H)= .1288", Min H= .1267", Mean H= .1277", S=.0009"
WLRM: Max H=.1305", Min H=.1290, Mean H=.1298", S=.0005"
Rem 9-1/2: Max H=.1334", Min H=.1304", Mean H=.1315", S=.0010

I also noted that the Remington primers had more of the anvil exposed below the bottom of the primer cup than either of the other two (the Fed-210M had almost none of the anvil extend beyond the primer cup). On careful examination of the spent primers taken from the "blanks", it is clear that when the firing pin strikes the primer, the primer cup is first driven down to the base of the primer pocket (driving whatever portion of the anvil protruding from the cup up into the primer). Then, because the cup material does not stretch to the same depth as the pin-strike dent, it "rolls" into the primer pocket so it sits below flush with the case base. Makes sense, when you think about it. Oh, and BTW: I prepare all of my brass with a Sinclair primer pocket uniformer. Every one of my cases (that uses a large rifle primer) has a primer pocket that is .130" deep.

What these findings point out are completely inconclusive. I still don't know why those primers did'nt fire. Perhaps the Remington primers "cushioned" the pin-strike a bit because the anvils are being driven further into the cup. Maybe there were some "hard primers" mixed in with good... I don't know. However, Remington does know. Clearly, any company manufacturing primers will have all the dimensional statistics available for every lot they make... and they will also know how these tolerances compare to the excepted SAAMI spec and to other manufacturers. Now, if they would only be forthcoming with that information, maybe we can determine what happened with lot #1502.

 

[GS Arizona]

The titanium firing pin should be the focus of your effort to diagnose the problem. I've seen the same problem in 1911 pistols with titanium firing pins and certain brands of primers known for tough cup material. Simply stated, the titanium components don't deliver enough energy in the primer strike to reliably ignite the pellet as they trade energy for faster lock time. If you are interested in delving deeper into it, I would suggest replacing the firing pin with the original, retesting the primers and reporting your findings. If you were any closer to me, I'd suggest coming over for a well instrumented test of your rifle and primers, but 3000 miles might be a bit much!

German Salazar

 

[John Kielly]

Your observation got me wondering why this is. On rechecking my fired brass, I found that the primers driven below flush were only with the "blanks" that I fired (the rounds that I tested with only the primers, no powder or bullet). All of the other 400-some-odd empty cases from the live-rounds fired (which are still here on my reloading bench waiting for my attention) all have the back of the primer out flush with where the bolt-face would be.

That's as it should be. Firing the primer can/should seat the primer a tad deeper in the case, but when you have a charge of powder it will push it back against the bolt face.

 

[rstreich]

That's as it should be. Firing the primer can/should seat the primer a tad deeper in the case, but when you have a charge of powder it will push it back against the bolt face.

Should it seat it deeper in the primer pocket? I'd think that if it does, then you aren't getting your primers seated correctly. You'd be losing a fair bit of critical energy pushing the primer forward. I'm just thinking aloud here--haven't measured or tested any of this, but it would seem that if the edges of the primer were in solid contact with the bottom of the primer pocket, it might appear that the primer was seated more deeply just as a result of the deformation from the firing pin strike.

Im_leary, I think I disagree with the "should" part of John's statment, but the primers will definitely get pushed back to flush with the bolt face. I think there's sufficient force just in the primer to back it out. Maybe this is what you were saying above with "blanks."

Some of the more qualified here will correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're only seating your primers to where they are flush with the case head, then you are probably not seating them deeply enough. When I seat primers, they are usually seated below the surface of the case head--how much depends on the primer and the case.

Since you seem to have a bunch of primers that you're stuck with, and easy test would be to prime some cases with the faulty primers so that they are firmly seated. I'm not familiar with your priming tool, but you'd need one with a punch that didn't extend beyond the edge of the primer. I'd also pay attention to what German has posted. He seems to have a slightly unnatural fascination with primers

 

[Yote]

If you have another rifle that uses large primers, prime some casings and test a few in that rifle. If you have some that snap, I would have to eliminate your Winchester as being the problem.

 

[axlenut]

Yes, I agree with the titanium firing pin as being a possible culprit. I used the Tubb Speed Lock set up in Remington actions, without a problem, but I uniform every primer pocket and fully seat every primer, while maintaining minimum case headspace (light crush fit on bolt closure).

There is the possibility that a unique situation could develop where a minimum dimension case, or one that has been sized too short, will ride forward in the chamber and soften the blow of the firing pin. Couple this with a short seated primer and the lighter firing pin expends it's energy seating the primer, or nearly seating the primer, leaving a dent, without igniting the pellet. In this scenario, the pellet is broken and unable to fire with subsequent strikes. The shock of that high velocity firing pin actually destroys the improperly seated primer as it moves forward. Add a thicker or harder primer cup, and chances for a malfunction are increased. This is especially true of push feed actions without the strong retention of a massive Mauser type extractor. I believe most factory Winchester target/varmint type M-70's were push feed actions.

Chamber headspace to case length plays a part in this, especially in improved chambers where the case is not contacting the neck to shoulder junction, even where the chamber is correctly dimensioned. I have experienced misfires or hangfires caused by this situation. In some severe incidents, I have seen fired primers that have backed out, then been reseated by the expanding case, resulting in a flattened riveted appearance, as if they were subject to an overload. Or, in some instances, the case may actually be shortened after firing due to low fire forming pressure, with the primer protruding.

In no instance should the firing pin strike be able to seat the primer deeper.

Including contamination of the priming mix, there are just too many factors in the equation to single out the primer. I still believe your problem may be mechanical, and related to an intermittent mismatch between the rifle, ammunition and primer characteristics. These problems can be frustrating to track down, and may be due to everything above AND primers that are too hard or insensitive for the combination.

 

[Joe S]

That's as it should be. Firing the primer can/should seat the primer a tad deeper in the case, but when you have a charge of powder it will push it back against the bolt face.

Fireing may drive the primer deeper but the pressure of its ignition pushes it back out.
I`ve seen primed uncharged brass in a revolver have the cylinder lock up from the primer backing out of the case. The primer on ignition backs out, the brass is pushed foreward by the fireing pin and with no powder there is no pressure to drive the case back against the bolt/breech face.
This is the reason for primers flattening from excessive head space. The case moves foreward from the strikers blow, the primer backs out, then pressure pushes the case back over the exposed portion of the primer flattening it.

 

[BJS6]

I scanned over all the posts but it seems nobody has mentioned headspace.

I bet if you took the fired cases and just neck sized them with the same primers they would fire just fine !

My guess is case are a bit sloppy for headspace and the light pin are conspiring to cause a problem. The pin doesn't have the momentum of a heavier pin and the case fit lets the case move forward lowing the impacts effectiveness.

Prime some fired brass and see what happens ...........