-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Any concern with these ejector marks?
- Thread starter Lucreau
- Start date
How much did headspace grow from virgin to fire formed?
If it was within 4k or so, I'd probably back down a touch. If it grew quite a bit, reshoot a few with the FF brass and see if you still get ejector marks.
If it was within 4k or so, I'd probably back down a touch. If it grew quite a bit, reshoot a few with the FF brass and see if you still get ejector marks.
New adg brass
156gr Berger eol
Federal 215m primer
58.2gr N565
2.955” OAL
Curtis valor action
maybe the ejector tunnel opening is too sharp
or it’s a start pressure issue due to heavy brass and bullet too close to the lands
Getting these well below max n565 & n568 215 primers. .040 ol. I will measure shoulder length tonight on mine
Based on the information I'm aware of, that load is definitely on the hot side, and is over the pressure limit according to my QuickLoad App. The main reason for being over the limit is that ADG lists the case volume at 66.9 gr of H2O where other brass tends to be a couple of grains higher (like at ~68.8). The ADG brass is heftier (thicker walls), so it should handle higher pressures . . . to some extent. The ejector imprints are a sure sign of high pressure and I'd certainly back off, even if there are no hard bolt lift (which might be due to the heftier ADG brass). Having that much pressure could be a serious problem if you find yourself shooting in higher ambient temperatures. Anyway, take a look at what I'm looking at in QuickLoad:
Primers don’t cause ejector marks. Pressure or violent impact causes ejector marks.
That’s because 215’s are a hotter primer. That’s a normal thing. Anytime you use a hotter primer you’ll max out sooner.
The thicker walls also yield less case volume, which leads to higher pressures for same charge. Add that to the 215 primers as well. When I switched from ADG to Lapua with my 300 PRC, I had to raise my charge of RL26 by nearly a full grain.
Yes, less case volume = higher pressures for the same charge, as that was my point. I guess I shouldn't have assumed that was understood and mentioned that in that post that way.
Because you said the primers are causing the ejector marks which is incorrect.
This is what I said actually. Magnum primer is creating more pressure, thus it reaches pressure earlier. Don’t be a dick. We’re all here to share info, learn, and create better safer loads.
This is what you said ^^^^^^^^^^
I’m not being a dick, just pointing out that it’s not from the primers.
Not to be confrontational or argumentative but I would like to see the data that supports your conclusion. The strain gage testing I've seen says there is either no conclusion or no difference with regard to magnum primers and the cartridge maximum pressure. I have also done my own anecdotal testing swapping magnum primers into hot loads, both rifle and pistol, and found no appreciable difference.
OP just has a good old fashioned over max load, no primer chicanery.
Bolt Action Reloading did a very basic run down of the effects of different primers with a strain gage. It is statically irrelevant but matches my own results.
Well, whenever I tried magnums I reached max pressure at a lower charge weight than with standard primers. While I did not use a pressure gauge, I did go by bolt lift effort, primer appearance, case head marks and velocity.
Second, it is important to note that some powders are inappropriate for some applications. That’s why there is no data for those. Just because people use a particular recipe all over the internet does not mean it’s a good one. It might work in one rifle but blow primers in another. If you introduce a magnum primer into the mix it just might induce these problems.
The guy in the video admitted that in other applications he found magnum primers to be hotter just not in the 223/AR Comp application.
The OP has an overbore cartridge. Those are inherently problematic.
Good luck with that. The objective evidence would have to come from a lab testing a particular recipe.
You can’t take data from a 223 and make general conclusions about everything else.
I have experience with the cartridge being discussed in this thread, using the same components as OP, and substituting standard and magnum primers. Your conclusion does not match my experience.
Reloading is always anecdotal based because anyone conducting statistically relevant studies keep the data as intellectual property.
You can make general conclusions from 223 as much as any other cartridge, which is not at all and also the point I was making.
How many rounds since you cleaned? 6.5 PRC and other overbore cartridges that use slow(er) magnum speed powders tend to carbon up faster and that carbon build up will increase pressure and velocity in short order. I suggest cleaning 6.5 PRC's every 100 rounds at a minimum.
Brass flow into ejector slots is almost always either a headspace or excessive pressure issue. If your headspace is good.....
Brass flow into ejector slots is almost always either a headspace or excessive pressure issue. If your headspace is good.....
I’m not the OP but I did h20 capacity (68.7gn) of mine and ran it in Gordon’s. They don’t have a 156 eol in Gordon’s so modified a bullet profile, adjusted it with my velocities and it says I was over pressured. Surprising because I’m still much lower than what Berger sent me data wise. Berger is definitely is aggressive compared to Gordon’s and VV data.
I’m going to test with BR2 primers this weekend and we’ll see if I get similar pressure signs.
I’m getting a very slight imprint of ejector. Case shoulder grew .003.
If someone wants to run it through QL for me and see if data is similar to GRT: n568, 24”, 7.5, 68.7gn h20, COAL 3.0355, saying over pressure at 59.4
Similar threads
