Testing White River and OFV primers

[John Weigel]

OK, straight up – this skinny data-set raises as may questions as it answers. But I figured it was worth sharing its rough-and-ready indications anyway, given the insecurity of components supplies - and recent appearance of two new options in large rifle primers in Australia: American-made White River, and Indian-made OFV military grade primers. This first look at the two new boys in town follows earlier similar tests of CCI BR2s and Federal GM210MS (viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15035#p109438). This time around, after noticing considerable variation in cup thickness, I included back-to-back 5-shot groups with each of the three defined primer weights (test 1 – relatively light weight, test 2 with medium, and test 3 with relatively heavy weights). I expected the high variation in primer thickness in the two new products to translate into larger groups, but that didn’t really happen in any obvious way. None of the results are presented with pretty graphs yet, nor can much be concluded yet. I’m planning on a deeper and more thorough test when I get some time.

Absolute group sizes in attached images don’t mean as much as they would had I taken time to develop specific load and tuner settings for each primer (which I’ll do next time), though interestingly, I was tuned for the CCI BR2s - which didn’t win the small-group gong as expected. Also, as found in my earlier tests, there are definite sweet-spots for primer seating depths, and I chose one that works OK for that rifle, those (uniformed) primer pockets, and CCI BR2 weight sorted primers.

I used a semi-retired 7 SAUM barrel on a Barnard long action, shooting 5-shot groups during a three-hour period at St Mary’s indoor 50m range, fan-cooling barrel after every 15 or 20 shots. I cleaned barrel using patented five-minute back-to-metal method using patched brush with Sweet’s/abrasive mixture that I posted about previously before each group of 35 primers, with 5 foulers shot onto a separate target pre-test, though I saw no real difference in group sizes for these – e.g. the ‘warm up’ 5-shot group that preceded the scary .7 MOA (.35” at 50m) (Target 1 - mixed lot of weights of CCIs) was less than 3 MOA. For each primer type I established and stuck to a primer seating depth that created 2-4 thou crush for a nominal primer thickness - approximately average, from the tested sample of primers. I drew the CCIs and OFVs from a single packet of 100 each; I sampled two packets of White River primers, purchased at two locations, because on inspection I found that the two packets had surprisingly different average weights. Spoiler alert, if sorted by weight, it doesn’t seem to matter. Clearly a more detailed test will sample from lots of 1,000 primers to get an idea of how far outliers may lay – as I’ve demonstrated previously, in the bricks of CCIs and Feds I tested, there were a few potential match-spoiling weight extremes in each, with over 50% variance in the weights of the non-metalic elements. Although I collected a bucket-load of weight and size data for the primer components before and after use, but don’t see the value of crunching at this stage, having concluded that cup and anvil weight variation for CCI and WR is very tiny, with the variation all present in the soft compounds. Slightly different story with the Indian primers, but not enough to get excited about.

Although there are some half-descent groups for each of the three tested brands, what you can’t as easily see is a shifting of point of impact among some of the three weight-classes of each primer type – which should further help to convince holdouts (including most of the guys on my team!) as to the value of primer weight-sorting. Also, softly, it looks like those good ‘ole boys down in Arkansas may be onto a good product, and maybe we are too. And at least the heaviest of the OFVs have shot well so far.

IMG_3973.jpg

IMG_4011.jpg

IMG_4012.jpg

IMG_4013.jpg

[Pablolig]

Adding to your good work, I managed to weigh 200 OFV primers yesterday. No testing done as yet, but I just thought that starting from a known base, will help.
I used an A&D 300 set of scales.
Weigh are in grams.

More to follow

[saltpan]

So I used the OFV primers for the first time on Saturday - I didn't weigh them. I had quite a large vertical spread - although I was shooting 800m at Anzac Rifle Range in a tough wind. I had 3 miss high in my first stage and 1 miss high in the second stage. There was a lot of mirage but I'm not 100% sure if the primers are consistent. I bought 100 RWS primers to see how they go! I have 950 OFV left so I might need to start weighing if I'm going to use them.

Rifle_Cartridge_2024-09-14_10-34-55.csv

[Pablolig]

I suggest you do.
I have good results with them, sorting them

[Fire Dog]

[font=Georgia]Recently bought a brick each of Lg Rifle WR & RWS with the same thought of testing results against the Remington's that I am currently using.
I will {for the first time ever in all the years of reloading} start weighing the primers on my A&D 120i and see how that goes.
One more thing to add to getting any extraneous variables eliminated... Sigh
Anyway, how are the WR verses the RWS going?
Any noticeable difference?[/font]

So I used the OFV primers for the first time on Saturday - I didn't weigh them. I had quite a large vertical spread - although I was shooting 800m at Anzac Rifle Range in a tough wind. I had 3 miss high in my first stage and 1 miss high in the second stage. There was a lot of mirage but I'm not 100% sure if the primers are consistent. I bought 100 RWS primers to see how they go! I have 950 OFV left so I might need to start weighing if I'm going to use them.

Rifle_Cartridge_2024-09-14_10-34-55.csv

[antunkov]

I got hold of 200 pieces of White River Large Magnum primers.
Here is the sorting graph:

image.png

They are quite thick, from 0.129"-0.133".
I wonder John Weigel how deep did you seat your primers below the flush, and how deep are your primer pockets.
Thank you Sir.

[Tim L]

Being a skeptic on the primer weight front (I'm not convinced it's the active compound that's causing the difference), has anyone weighed the empty cups?

[PeteFox]

Being a skeptic on the primer weight front (I'm not convinced it's the active compound that's causing the difference), has anyone weighed the empty cups?

Tim
I weighed 50 fired Federal GM210, flipped out the anvil, cleaned the carbon out and weighed as a pair. The biggest differnece I found was 0.02 grain. They are very uniform.
The only other possibility for error is that some of the variation could be in the wax coating.
I've dissasembled a few White River live primers to measure cup height. The wax? membrane flips out as a white disc and looks very uniform. The cup height is also very uniform.
Once I have a few more fired WR primers I'll repeat rhe weighing.of the cups.

Pete

[willow]

[font=Georgia]Recently bought a brick each of Lg Rifle WR & RWS with the same thought of testing results against the Remington's that I am currently using.
I will {for the first time ever in all the years of reloading} start weighing the primers on my A&D 120i and see how that goes.
One more thing to add to getting any extraneous variables eliminated... Sigh
Anyway, how are the WR verses the RWS going?
Any noticeable difference?[/font]

So I used the OFV primers for the first time on Saturday - I didn't weigh them. I had quite a large vertical spread - although I was shooting 800m at Anzac Rifle Range in a tough wind. I had 3 miss high in my first stage and 1 miss high in the second stage. There was a lot of mirage but I'm not 100% sure if the primers are consistent. I bought 100 RWS primers to see how they go! I have 950 OFV left so I might need to start weighing if I'm going to use them.

Rifle_Cartridge_2024-09-14_10-34-55.csv

I have both primers but haven't done any back to back testing with them yet - going to have to wait a few more weeks as I'm about to jet OS again so 3-4 weeks away from trying to do anything with them.

[AD10020]

Has any one done any testing with the Small Rifle White River Primers?
I've had a go with them in my 308, but found the groups opened up a lot compared to CCI's and Federals
Maybe doesn't work so well with 8208?

Also found them to be very dirty in the primer pocket compared to other brands

[antunkov]

Those White River primers measure between 0.129" and 0.133", while Lapua 6.5 PRC brass primer pockets are about 0.127" deep.
Are you guys uniforming the primer pockets to avoid over-crushing the primers?
I would like to know how much below flush are you seating them?
Thanks!

[PeteFox]

Those White River primers measure between 0.129" and 0.133", while Lapua 6.5 PRC brass primer pockets are about 0.127" deep.
Are you guys uniforming the primer pockets to avoid over-crushing the primers?
I would like to know how much below flush are you seating them?
Thanks!

Anton
The primer pockets in my Lapua brass measures 0.128"~ 0.129" deep
Yes, the WR primers are larger than this dimension, but that includes the anvil. I don't see that as a problem, as the anvil is meant to be seated (crushed) into the cup.
I have removed the anvils from some unfired WR primers and the cups measure from 0.120" ~ 0.122", so that allows for at least 0.006" seating below flush (using the biggest cup in the shortest pocket).
After this point you will begin to crush the cup - not good.
What this "over dimension" does IMO is enforce some sort of uniformity in primer seating as all of the anvils will have some crush in them.
I have seen occasionally that with Fed GM 210 primers, sometimes the anvil sits below or flush with the surface of the cup, therefore there is no crush on the anvil - this does not aid uniformity.

I am seating WR primers 0.003" below flush without a problem.
Pete