Winchester .204 brass major issue with loose primer pockets on first reloads

[ChesterP]

Laurie's observations are spot on. I had near identical MV rises for two of my three barrels within 200 rounds of new. One was a rifled re-barrelled with a L-W stainless barrel, the other was a new T3 in 6.5. Using 139 scenars in SR brass, my starting loads showed little pressure signs at 44.3 gr with MV's of around 2620fps. Within 200 rounds that had jumped by around 50fps average. I backed the load off to 44 gr and all was good and consistent (and has been ever since) at about 2650-60fps.

Same deal with the L-W barrel. Now when shooting in a new barrel, I start at least half a grain or more under my target load after working up to the node I want, knowing that the likelihood of pressures rising and MV's picking up is possible.

I initially put this down to the barrel coppering up and then smoothing out as rounds went down it. but cleaning the barrel back to bare metal after 200 rounds made no difference to the rise in MV/Pressures. I also expected, irrespective what the leade angle was designed and made at, that this would alter over time with repeated firing of the same bullets so what starts out as one specific angle may well flatten out to a shallower angle although I'm unsure whether that might affect pressure.

It's one of those things irrespective of cause and effect, that you can't afford to ignore, particularly with small capacity cases. I've had some pretty awful variations in new 223 brass on case capacity, tested in all cases with fire formed. It's got to the stage with PPU where I end up setting aside perhaps 10% of new brass because I consider the variation too large for precision, or in the case of warmer loads, not worth the risk. My Lapua and Sako also have some slight batch variations but not nearly to the same extent as PPU/Winchester/Hornady.

 

[Lancaster]

If the barrels are made of austenitic stainless, (I don't know if they are), it would make sense as the steel would work harden over time after every bullet is fired, so there would be even less yield in the barrel than a new barrel, so the pressure would be constrained in what would be, in effect, a thicker walled barrel.
Blow into a balloon it expands easily, blow into a bike inner tube it take a lot more pressure to make it expand.

 

[Foxyboy43]

Hmm. I for one have found this a fascinating thread, not saying I understood it all but fascinating none the less; thank you guys for making the effort to respond in the detail you did.
Now call me old-fashioned but the big and rather obvious KISS question for me is why do the various manufacturers have such inconsistencies in their product to the extent that some loads safe in one case are patently dangerous in another because of internal volume inconsistencies? Just seems odd/wrong to me.

 

[Lancaster]

Hmm. I for one have found this a fascinating thread, not saying I understood it all but fascinating none the less; thank you guys for making the effort to respond in the detail you did.
Now call me old-fashioned but the big and rather obvious KISS question for me is why do the various manufacturers have such inconsistencies in their product to the extent that some loads safe in one case are patently dangerous in another because of internal volume inconsistencies? Just seems odd/wrong to me.

Cartridge standards are based on external dimensions, they have to fit in any rifle chambered for that chambering/calibre.
Basically no standards for internals, so they make the case to meet their own specs or, if I am being cynical, whatever cost their accountants tell them to.

 

[Foxyboy43]

Cartridge standards are based on external dimensions, they have to fit in any rifle chambered for that chambering/calibre.
Basically no standards for internals, so they make the case to meet their own specs or, if I am being cynical, whatever cost their accountants tell them to.

Aye I get that and of course the beancounter input but if there is a variance on volume that can in essence be dangerous and in this risk averse society how do they get away with it?

 

[Lancaster]

Aye I get that and of course the beancounter input but if there is a variance on volume that can in essence be dangerous and in this risk averse society how do they get away with it?

Well, I guess that some manufacturers create complete cartridges and they have little interest in the fact that some cases are reloaded.
They make a case that their load has been tailored to work in, and if it goes bang the first time it is fired that is their job done, after that it's not their responsibility.

To be fair, if folk load brand new brass using load data that pretty much always recommends to start 10% below max and work up, they would rarely get to the point that the brass goes pop if they displayed due diligence.

 

[NP435]

Well, I guess that some manufacturers create complete cartridges and they have little interest in the fact that some cases are reloaded.
They make a case that their load has been tailored to work in, and if it goes bang the first time it is fired that is their job done, after that it's not their responsibility.

To be fair, if folk load brand new brass using load data that pretty much always recommends to start 10% below max and work up, they would rarely get to the point that the brass goes pop if they displayed due diligence.

Yes exactly, I load with virgin brass until its worn in any way (loose primer pockets or splits in necks) or once fired factory IF the once fired are from my chamber. I do not think the factory care's at all if we reload the brass however they have a vested interest in a quality product that means quality brass. Yes bean counters input has some influence.

 

[Sharpie]

If the barrels are made of austenitic stainless, (I don't know if they are), it would make sense as the steel would work harden over time after every bullet is fired, so there would be even less yield in the barrel than a new barrel, so the pressure would be constrained in what would be, in effect, a thicker walled barrel.

Probably not. The oft quoted idea that SS ones are made from 416R (martensitic) and plain ones from "chrome-moly" is a sweeping generalisation.

Some barrel makers are very particular about what they use, its suitability for the different processes (buttoning, cut rifling, cold hammer forging etc.) their heat treatments before during and after, annealing, stress relieving, tempering,, even cryo treating etc. and of course the cost of doing all this.

Dikar S Coop (AKA Bergara) for example make much play about the specialist SS which they source locally, otherwise only made in two other places in Europe.

Just two links this time:

CRUCIBLE 416R: Crucible Selector - Crucible 416R

NRA Family | What Is the Best Gun Barrel Material?

Alloy Steels
Suitable barrel alloys include types having varying amounts of chromium, molybdenum, vanadium, nickel and manganese as alloying metals. A popular example and perennial favorite in the U.S. is called SAE 4140 chrome-molybdenum or "chrome-moly" steel. In Europe, vanadium and nickel-steel alloys are preferred. Most standard barrels are made with alloy steels, as they offer an excellent balance of strength and cost.

Stainless Steels
Stainless-steel barrels have been around since the 1930s. However, they have recently seen widespread use for two reasons: First, their resistance to heat erosion is superior to chrome-moly barrels; second, their resistance to rust nearly eliminates corrosion in humid environments.

 

[Sharpie]

Assuming I've read your post right and this was new brass, I'd have rejected the contents of the entire bag and returned it even if some appeared OK when using the priming tool. Case integrity is so fundamental to safety that the risk in using any case from such a lot is far, far too high.

I think that Cyrus had already shot all of his new Winchester cases once, with his carefully developed pet load. No issues with priming them the first time, apparently. And killed many foxes with them. Then only discovered something like 30% had loose primer pockets when he came to reload them the next time.

So carried on re-using the ones that primers still seemed to fit into. Then the blowups and persistence in ignoring them several times, then trying again with fresh Norma brass with explosive results the very first time.

Couldn't possibly be a fault with his load, must be the brass, or the primers, or summat, maybe annealing them will fix them up again ???. I do seriously hope that he has binned every piece of brass that has been subjected to that load even just the once.

 

[ChesterP]

Annealing won't help the ones that were overpressure. They're toast due to primer pockets now being loose. The issue as I understand it was a hot load in brass that was smaller in capacity combined with inconsistencies in brass quality (including loose primer pockets) from new. I'm with Laurie,; I'd have returned the whole batch I think and also made a strong mental note that when you change something, whether that be brass, powder batch or primer, you start again , especially with hot loads! There's no good reason for taking any risks with recreational shooting or stalking reloading. Life is a wonderful thing. The battlefield might make you think twice. The field shouldn't.

 

[Sharpie]

Annealing won't help the ones that were overpressure. They're toast due to primer pockets now being loose. The issue as I understand it was a hot load in brass that was smaller in capacity combined with inconsistencies in brass quality (including loose primer pockets) from new.

I may have confused myself, but he did say in post #16 "So since then used 200 35 gn Bergers and no issues. Either Winchester or RP brass. Lots of dead foxs"

Either way, that Winchester brass is scrap. Whether it started life defective, or now has been made so. So, I suggest is anything else that has been subjected to that load, even just the once and seemingly re-usable.

He talked of having brass that's sooted on the body, even all the way to the head, so needs annealing to fix it back up. I'm not so sure that simple work hardening of the neck/shoulder is the root cause of that.

Two suggestions after literally 30 seconds of searching:

Norma .204 Ruger Unprimed Brass - Foxholes Country Pursuits

Or (a good company BTW, used to be my local).

Nosler Bulk Rifle Brass .204 Ruger (250 Pack) 10057 - Bagnall & Kirkwood - Reloading

Nosler bulk brass was created for the high-volume hand loaders that want Nosler quality brass but want to do the case prep work themselves. Manufactured from the same quality materials and to the same tolerances allowing for extended case life and unmatched reloadability, bulk brass comes unprepped in non-weight sorted 100ct and 250ct bags. Nosler bulk brass provides you with the best raw brass for creating that perfect load time and time again.

Sorry we can’t export this item outside of the UK.

4 in stock

Nosler Bulk Rifle Brass .204 Ruger (250 Pack) 10057 quantity-
1
+ADD TO BASKET
SKU: HO-NLB10057

 

[Sharpie]

I checked the Berger data 28.6 BLC2 is the max charge with the 35 grn projectile. Now I wonder what the data source was. There is a reason to check published data.
Now the pierced and blown primers make sense its.........................................overpressure, no wonder the primer pockets expanded.

Of course he could have bought the Berger reloading manual for about £35. Or put a shout out here for someone to show him the page for the 204 Ruger.

 

[ChesterP]

I think from speaking with Cyres, the main issue AFAIK was Winchester brass deficiencies from the new batch and some shots clearly overpressure. The whole lot will be annealed but as Laurie suggests, finding new brass with loose primer pockets would suggest that the wisest thing might be to return the whole batch. Work hardening of brass won't be the cause of cases sooting up. I've only ever had small cases loaded overpressure once. I scrapped the ones which were fired and used the bullet puller on the unfired rounds for reloading. Not worth playing Russian Roulette for the sake of a few quids worth of brass.

 

[Sharpie]

I think from speaking with Cyres, the main issue AFAIK was Winchester brass deficiencies from the new batch and some shots clearly overpressure. The whole lot will be annealed but as Laurie suggests, finding new brass with loose primer pockets would suggest that the wisest thing might be to return the whole batch. Work hardening of brass won't be the cause of cases sooting up. I've only ever had small cases loaded overpressure once. I scrapped the ones which were fired and used the bullet puller on the unfired rounds for reloading. Not worth playing Russian Roulette for the sake of a few quids worth of brass.

Excuse me @Cyres for probably seeming like a right nuisance by now, but this is how I have pieced your timeline together, doubtless incorrectly.

post #1

have been using Remington and Winchester 204 brass for years and never had any problems.

My standard load was 39 BK and Rel 10x but since 39 BK have become unavailable I had to develop a new load.

After much testing my new load is 35 Berger 31.2 BLC 2 with Winchester/Remington case/ Rem 7.5 primer at 2.250 COL

Excellent load fast and accurate. There are no pressure signs and testing last summer was done at near 30 c!

post #6:

We did a ladder test and recorded the velocity and the last node was about 29.9 to 31.3 there were no pressure signs at this load but there were in slightly increased loads so it is getting close.

Me, post #12:

Quick run through P-Max, guess at powder space, predicted massive overpressure, 67,046 psi. I also said that for the 57,500 psi MAP. P-Max predicts that absolutely top load you would be hitting that at about 30.1 grains of powder.

ChesterP has subsequently simulated even higher pressure, using GRT with your measured case capacities and auto-tuned with your chronoed muzzle velocities. Yet you used QuickLOAD and somehow convinced yourself that it was actually a safe load. Something does not compute there.

post #14:

So now up to date. Reload some once fired fully preped Winchester brass which was used new to develop the BLC2 load. As I stated many slack or completely loose primer pockets. Only used primed cases which felt normal when using Lee hand primer. On testing major issues with blown primers.
As I have a large stock of CCI small rifle primers I had also loaded a few to test and as I stated cratered or pierced primers as they are too soft.

So decided to load Bergers in brand new Nosler brass. Took them to mates and powder dispensed on his automatic powder dispenser. Calibrated before use and 31.2 grn BLC 2 dispensed. Loaded 35. Tested 2 days ago and very first one went bang, very tight bolt lift and blown out primer so clearly overloaded.

For info case volumes Hornady 2.14 cm3, Winchester 2.03 cm3, Nosler 2.077 cm3, RP 2.16 cm3. Once fired Hornady Superperformance 2.16 cm3

am off up to Chester P next week to get all my 204 brass annealed

ChesterP post #24:

Just entered all the data including measured MVs and case capacity, and max safe node for OBT appears to be 29.6gr for 3700fps (21.5" barrel) at 55K PSI. Next lowest is 28.4gr for 3513fps. 31.2 showing massively overpressure at 67,600psi. Data was trued for measured MVs to calibrate modelled pressures.

Daddy The Skunk post #38

I checked the Berger data 28.6 BLC2 is the max charge with the 35 grn projectile.

So, from tapping away at my keyboard with zero other knowledge, from what I have pieced together, ISTM that :

1) You developed your new load using a mix of new Winchester and ? age Remington brass.

2) The Winchester brass has the smallest case capacity. The Remington the largest. (Nosler is very similar to Winchester). I don't think that you should be "developing" bleeding edge loads using two such widely varying case capacities. If you insist on trying to develop one load to use across all your mixed brass (five different types no less), at least try to do so using the smallest capacity ones.

3) You detected a high percentage of loose primer pockets in the Winchester brass only after they had already been shot once, during load development. Is this correct ? Could that even correlate only with the ones once you started pushing above say 29 grains ?

Did you actually find loose pockets on any brand new Winchester brass, or if so was that only in the new bag of 100, which I suppose could be a manufacturing issue , in which case bin those, or try to return them to get your money back ?

Yet you re-used the ones that still seemed to you to be OK, at your overpressure load, with the subsequent results. This is no surprise to me.

4) You now know that your load was far too hot. Any cases that have been subjected to that, or even hotter, during your push up to 31.9 gr are highly suspect and should be scrapped, presuming that you have segregated them so can identify them. Please don't bother annealing them, just bin them.

5) Going forward, I, personally would not be trying to develop loads to use across mixed brass known to have widely varying capacities. I'd start with a sufficient quantity of new brass, and powder, ideally from one manufacturing lot, to cover my needs for the duration. If insisting on doing so, develop your loads using the smallest capacity cases that you have.

If say choosing Nosler bulk brass (the stuff that comes in bags, and can be found, in stock), pay attention. "Nosler quality brass but want to do the case prep work themselves. ... bulk brass comes unprepped in non-weight sorted 100ct and 250ct bags" I think the same could pretty much be said for other makes of brass, but maybe not up to Nosler quality.

If, say, stocking up with 400 bullets, as you have, I'd also be stocking up with say 2lbs or 1kilo of suitable powder, perhaps 500 primers and 100 new cases. And be cross referencing published load data with simulation to hopefully minimise the time, effort materials and barrel life to be expended in the development.

I would also not be developing a new load using BL-C(2), knowing that it will not be available in the future, any still in the supply chain will eventually be gone. Unless you are already stocked up with enough to see you out. You'll be getting about 230 shots per lb.

I even suspect that, with a sensible load, you might even find that your large stock of CCI 400 primers may yet prove up to the job.

6) I suggest giving your bolt face a close examination to make sure its not been gas-cut during these events. Hopefully you've got away with it this time.

 

[ChesterP]

We're on top of it. As interesting as it might be and without wishing to waste time going back over older posts, we're in the position of having brass sorted and new load data on tap to start over. Despite how it comes across above, there was an issue with some of the newer brass out of the box. Not to be conflated with load details above as original loads were clearly way over pressure and not being used again. Lessons learned and no one injured.

For those with the patience to follow this far, the main things to take away from this thread are

1) small variations in small rifle cal case capacities matter... lot!
2) Detailed homework is needed to do a check on likely pressures before shooting. Testing a ladder (a couple at each load) and recording MVs is sensible before looking for an accuracy node. For efficiency, using measured step test MV's and inputting to GRT or similar will spit out likely accuracy nodes which determines a selective couple of loads to try with small steps either side (assuming that calibration of models allows this accuracy).
3) don't always presume new cases are ok as they may have flaws or inconsistencies. Check new batches thoroughly before FL sizing and loading.

 

[ChesterP]

OK, we now have measured velocities to true, then check GRT before the model outputs can be considered reliable.

Based on measured case of 2.077cm3, load of 30.7gr BL-C2 under a 35gr Berger Varmint @ 2.25COL, we have a measured velocity of 3872fps. This was a tested accuracy node.

I have now calibrated GRT for Cyres rifle details and it confirms a bullet lead time of 0.78mS and a node at this for OBT at 0.78mS so bang on an accuracy node which was exactly what Cyres discovered shooting this load in the field tests. That confirms that the OBT calculator for this model can be relied upon.

Trouble is that this load is also way over pressure at over 65Kpsi so running for a 10 step ladder in 0.2gr intervals throws up another few nodes.

The max safe load which lies on an accuracy node is 29.4gr BL-C2 for around 3710fps although BLT and OBT are a little apart at 0.91mS V's 0.85mS. The more accurate node is actually lower at 28.1gr for 3541fps @ chamber pressure of 46.800psi, a load ratio of 93% and burn ratio of 87% so possibly not the most efficient load. However the OBT and BLT correlate almost exactly.

In practice, the surprising variations within the same batches of case capacity will throw SD/ES out somewhat. The results above mirror only a consistent 2.077cm3 case capacity, assume neck tension is uniform and OAL is uniform at 2.25inches.

Taking batch variations into account, I'd try the 28.1 load and the 29.4 load but no way would I recommend loading up more than 29.4gr. You'd be taken overpressure just with the ES variations in case capacity!

The surprising thing I've taken on board here, after extensive online research from as many sources as I could find, is that cases from Hornady, Winchester, Remington and Winchester all vary significantly enough to be of concern, with Hornady being the worst offenders with some measuring as much as a 10% case weight variation!

Rem cases seemed to be more consistent with an ES on case weight of 0.6gr but the big surprise was a batch of Nosler which from data obtained from the same batch of 65 cases tested varied by 1.6gr. However other sources quote Nosler as more consistent with this, and the top spot seems to go to Norma for the best quality brass.

It's difficult drawing too many safe conclusions for Winchester brass because they have outsourced their production for some years AFAIK, so the recommendation is most definitely batch your brass from whatever source, but my money would be on Norma brass being the best contender if you can find some.

Failing that, Remington brass may well be the more consistent of the economy end of things.

It's really quite a shock discovering just how much significant variation there is in this little cartridge case between makers batches and it effectively means loading anywhere close to powder maker's chart values a risky business without first batching your brass by case volume.

 

[Sharpie]

Very interesting @ChesterP

Have you seen the GRT video about OBT ? The chap thinks that standard integer OBT nodes are not necessarily optimal. He has found that half nodes seem to be better, and figured out a way to use GRT to find these.



For a given make, and batch, of brass I think that simply weighing them might be close enough for sorting out case capacity variations, rather than filling each one with water.

Nosler give a strong hint to do so, with their bulk, un prepped brass. Of course they also supply their "custom" brass, where they have done all the prep for you, starting with a full length re-size.

Other manufacturers don't necessarily do any of that, their new brass generally is just as it comes out of the machinery, some better than others. Her is how Peterson do it: Drawing Brass | How Cartridge Cases Are Made | Peterson Cartridge

Fully prepped, ready to load
Case mouths are chamfered and deburred
Nosler Brass is hand-inspected and weight-sorted
Flash holes are deburred and checked for proper alignment
Quality made
Each piece of brass is full length sized and trimmed to proper length

Very important point that you discovered. Until you trued GRT to the actual rifle muzzle velocities, you still hadn't realised how over pressure the top load was.

Seems as if Berger's published top load of 28.6 gr BLC2 is on the money (to be worked up to of course, not jumping straight in there).

Not sure what the load ratio and burn ratio numbers mean, but if e.g. the burn ratio of 87% is equivalent to the percentage powder burned in the barrel, that doesn't seem ideal to me. Maybe BL-C(2) is not really an optimal powder for the light 35gr bullets. Something faster could be rather better. But now you have GRT fine tuned to this particular rifle and bullet, you could quickly try out some other ideas.

Depending of course how close GRT's powder library parameters are to the actual stuff. From what I have read some European manufacturers have closely cooperated with GRT, whereas other (US) powder models are relying on reverse engineering, and user feedback by "The Community" to refine those.

Maybe you could even find something that might safely push those bullets closer to the magical 4000 fps figure that the 204 is supposed to be capable of.

Main lessons learned I suppose are not to rely on simulation, on default settings. but it can be a valuable tool, used in conjunction with a chrono, in your rifle, not a test barrel. And that published load data is not to be dismissed/disregarded. If they state a maximum load, work up to it, not back from it. And of course small cartridge cases can be a lot more finnicky to safely load for, and to weigh powder for, to the necessary degree of precision.

 

[Foxyboy43]

If you must hit 4000 fps (like why?) then Viht has the answer - this data is for a 40gns vmax so your 35gns should fly…….
As ever start low and work up as pressure signs dictate.

N530

1,50

23.1

1013

3323

1,67

25.8

1236

4055

 

[ChesterP]

I suspect that OBT accuracy cannot be generalised from the modelling as what works for half nodes should in theory work for full nodes. The important figure is the comparison of bullet lead time V's OBT; the closer they are, the better the node in sim' at any rate. Truing the model with my rifle data sets and withy Cyres rifle data confirms that full nodes approximate very closely with shot and tested nodes so that chap's views might be specific to the accuracy of the data he's used and for his rifle...it is not a generalisation I would trust necessarily. I don't really learn much from some of these videos, I prefer doing the leg work myself to better understand and gain confidence in the outputs as well as quickly cottoning on to things that don't look right.

I always test actual case capacity and do not trust published figures because accuracy depends on fire formed internal capacity which may very from chamber to chamber in the same calibre. As we've discovered, it takes very little for small case cap variations to significantly alter pressures. You can then of course weigh a case, correlate this to case mass but that will only allow you to set limits for SD/ES based on brass weight variations so you still have to understand how these relate to capacity. I would expect Norma or Lapua to be very close with good consistency, ditto Peterson and a few others.

Gordon did explain at length in the notes that accompany the model that it is intended to be used and trued with measured data and there are additional data sheets which you are intended to build. Had Gordon still been with us, I think that the idea was to collate these to gain valuable additional information for further refinement and to produce reference material. There is scope for getting it badly wrong if the notes are not read and understood. For example, if you click on the initial pressure star within the bullet data, you have an option of confirming primer type. You might reasonably assume that if using Magnum or high brisance (hot) primers you should select that option in addition to confirming measured MVs but that would be an error of judgement. If you do it will throw results out significantly. It is for use where you lack measured data and that function trues the model to better approximate modelled velocities without correcting the model MV for OBT opening page. Point is, it's not of much use if it's not being used properly.

It's small details like that within the model that must be carefully examined to be sure you are using it correctly. Do that and IME using it, it will get you close to, or bang on accuracy nodes. Some may fret over jump to lands and effects thereof, and wildcat barrels might required calibration of the model but don't forget that tested MV calibration will already have trued model pressures with internal variations between modelled and actual pressure/time curve spitting out the same end result in velocity irrespective of node. You're looking to pick a good group, so shooting each of several selected nodes is still needed but this at least allows good approximations for these which can if needed be fine tuned. It's certainly a saving in consumables as well as a good safety check.

 

[ChesterP]

If you must hit 4000 fps (like why?) then Viht has the answer - this data is for a 40gns vmax so your 35gns should fly…….
As ever start low and work up as pressure signs dictate.

N530

1,50

23.1

1013

3323

1,67

25.8

1236

4055

Indeed. Vhit has several options and I understand the Cyres may be trying Vhit from his stocks as an option but terminal ballistic differences up to say 300 yds between 3600fps and 4000fps MV are going to be negligible to a fox. That'd rather not be on the receiving end either way I suspect, especially knowing what a Vmax will do at much lower velocities! From an external ballistics view, the trajectory differences are not that great in the scheme of things.