Cci 450 vs cci 400

Near miss

Near miss

Major Hide Member
Full Member
Minuteman
    • Apr 8, 2019
    1,347
    707
    Finland
    #1
    I recently aquired few CCI 400 primers and having been using the CCI 450s I tested them a little bit.

    Again, I could not find solid information about the comparison between these and thought to settle this once and for all.

    Some commenters said they were piercing them and some said they worked well.

    I went to test them and they indeed work pretty well. For a beginner me they would have been better to use since they indicate pressures better than the magnums.

    I loaded slowly up from 23grs to that 25.5grs but I think the 25.5gr shows the best the difference between these too. In the picture you can find the CCI 400 in the left-bottom corner.

    *Bullet used was Scenar 77gr.

    CCI 450 vs CCI 400.jpg
     
    Last edited:
    #3
    Yeah, but calling them not enough good for 556 is stretching it. The 25.5gr load clocked 2770fps from 16". Not sure what the average MV would be, yet.

    I loaded 25.8gr too but did not shoot it, the primer is a bit flatter than can be seen from the photo and had a slightest bit of cratering. And, 25.5gr is way above my common load, 25.15gr.

    My take on it is that for 223/556 you can use the 400s well enough.

    It almost seems like 450s are meant for magnums..
     
    Last edited:
    #4
    IN THE BEGINNING... Small rifle primers were uses in 22 Hornet, 218 Bee, 30 Carbine and the 222 Remington, These rifles all had CUP pressures less than 50KSI. The first 50KSI cartridges were the 222 Remington Magnum at 50KSI and the 556/223 Remington at 52KSI. In particular the 223 being a military cartridge had some additional requirements so manufacturers were faced with the need for an updated primer. How this was handled depended on the manufacturer. The easiest to trace is Remington with the introduction of the Rem 7-1/2 primer for use in higher pressure rounds and a recommendation not to use the 6-1/2 in 223 or other high pressure rounds. The other extreme is Federal which only made SR primers for all uses until recently when they introduced the 205MAR. Winchester also went this route until recently with the #41. Both probably modified there original SR primers or found them suitable originally for these new cartridges. CCI went a route similar to Remington with the 450 and the 400. The "Magnum" primers have thicker and harder cups.

    If you were try this test in 6.5CM SRP brass you would likely see a significant difference. (62ksi vs 55ksi transducer).
     
    • Like
    Reactions: SierraCharlie, 338dude, camocorvette and 1 other person
    #5
    I mean I did in this test too, I just noticed the CCI 400 flattening really downplays in the photo. I can grab the crater with my finger nail.

    Thanks for the info, fun to know what went on for these to turn up.
     
    #8
    I have used thousands of CCI 400's in a bolt 223 that has had its bolt bushed and firing pin reduced to .060
    with hand loads that are below max without a single issue. Shoot mostly 75gr @ 2840 FPS out of a 26" barrel.

    I had the bolt bushed specifically to shoot 223's with CCI 400 primers as I had a bunch of CCI 400 primers and
    no other rifle that used what are low pressure small primers.

    I have measured both 450's and 400's and there is a substantial difference in the cup thickness, height and
    anvil shape. I would never use 400's in a gas gun or in something that has a large or loose firing pin or with
    high pressure loads.
     
    #9
    There indeed is clear difference.
    But I think I will manage. I have few K of both but thought to maybe save the 450s for SRP Lapua brass.

    Still testing them though. Mainly want to see if they need load tuning but if problems come up I just load lower pressure training rounds with them.
     
    #11
    I picked up 1k of the 400s a week ago. Was in a rush, saw CCI small rifle primer and grabbed them. Noticed what they were when I got home, and realized the 450s were likely the stack right next to them.
    Once I finish the box of Magtech primers I have open I will shoot up the CCI 400s.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 338dude
    #12
    400 primer looks just fine .It may be a little flatter but still OK . Primers don't tell the tail on pressure as well as all the internet BS you read . Ejector mark on brass ,heavy bolt lift, etc . are much better indicators .
     
    #17
    Doom said:
    Nope, not all the time. Only once and it had to do with temperature sensitivity of H335. Don't like using a mallet and 2x4 to open a bolt.
    Click to expand...
    I’ve used 400s in everything from hot 6.5CM and Dasher loads, to 223, 300blk, and even 9mm. One of my lowest SD strings ever was 10 rounds of dasher with 32gr Varget, Berger 105s, and CCI 400s at 2940fps 2.7sd. I’ve only pierced a couple and that was working up to max load in the CM/Dasher.. brass ejected just fine and nothing like case head separation or split necks.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Haney and Near miss
    #19
    Greenmoustache said:
    I’ve used 400s in everything from hot 6.5CM and Dasher loads, to 223, 300blk, and even 9mm. One of my lowest SD strings ever was 10 rounds of dasher with 32gr Varget, Berger 105s, and CCI 400s at 2940fps 2.7sd. I’ve only pierced a couple and that was working up to max load in the CM/Dasher.. brass ejected just fine and nothing like case head separation or split necks.
    Click to expand...

    Brass ejection, case head separation, and split necks have nothing to do with piercing primers. Fact is CCI 400 is inappropriate for the OPs application. You might get away with it in moderate loads with lightweight bullets but not in max loads with heavy bullets. CCI400 is basically a small pistol magnum primer. People use them interchangeably.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: spife7980
    #20
    whatsupdoc said:
    I have measured both 450's and 400's and there is a substantial difference in the cup thickness, height and
    anvil shape. I would never use 400's in a gas gun or in something that has a large or loose firing pin or with
    high pressure loads.
    Click to expand...

    This is how I handle the issue as well. CCI400s are not "low pressure" primers. They are absolutely fine for full power 223. The main reason I went to 450s is that most all of my AR-15 ammunition uses spherical/ball powder, which calls for a magnum primer. In a bolt gun with extruded powder, I would gladly load all my 223 ammo with 400s and it won't make a bit of difference. Floating firing pin guns or ball powder, magnum primers only.
     
    #22
    Downzero said:
    This is how I handle the issue as well. CCI400s are not "low pressure" primers. They are absolutely fine for full power 223. The main reason I went to 450s is that most all of my AR-15 ammunition uses spherical/ball powder, which calls for a magnum primer. In a bolt gun with extruded powder, I would gladly load all my 223 ammo with 400s and it won't make a bit of difference. Floating firing pin guns or ball powder, magnum primers only.
    Click to expand...
    You are mistaken the CCI 400;s like the Remington 6-1/2 primers are for 22 hornet level pressures.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Snaz
    #25
    918v said:
    Brass ejection, case head separation, and split necks have nothing to do with piercing primers. Fact is CCI 400 is inappropriate for the OPs application. You might get away with it in moderate loads with lightweight bullets but not in max loads with heavy bullets. CCI400 is basically a small pistol magnum primer. People use them interchangeably.
    Click to expand...
    Exactly. They are great until the first one eventually pops and then it goes exponentially worse for thereafter in my experience.
    Watch carefully and switch to 450 before it erodes with enough punctures that they don’t hold together with heavier primers either.
    I’ve chased the 400 dragon.
     
    #27
    whatsupdoc said:
    You are mistaken the CCI 400;s like the Remington 6-1/2 primers are for 22 hornet level pressures.
    Click to expand...

    Bullshit.

    Here it is straight from the source:





    I could keep posting but I believe this made the point. 223 Remington all the way to compressed loads with heavy bullets with CCI400s in published data--with extruded powder. The last link is 222 Remington Magnum, also with some extruded powder loads with CCI400s.

    If you think 27 grains of Varget with a 55 is a modest load, load it up and shoot it over a chrono sometime.

    There is no reason that 223 Remington cannot be loaded with CCI400s for a bolt gun. The company that manufactures them even publishes the data.

    No idea where any other idea got started. People use CCI400s in pistols because they can't get pistol primers, not because they aren't rifle primers.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 338dude
    #28
    Greenmoustache said:
    I’ve used 400s in everything from hot 6.5CM and Dasher loads, to 223, 300blk, and even 9mm. One of my lowest SD strings ever was 10 rounds of dasher with 32gr Varget, Berger 105s, and CCI 400s at 2940fps 2.7sd. I’ve only pierced a couple and that was working up to max load in the CM/Dasher.. brass ejected just fine and nothing like case head separation or split necks.
    Click to expand...
    Good to see we are on the same page . I will add 6 Br to the list . Like I stated earlier, experience is the best teacher .
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Downzero and Greenmoustache
    #30
    Downzero said:
    Bullshit.

    Here it is straight from the source:





    I could keep posting but I believe this made the point. 223 Remington all the way to compressed loads with heavy bullets with CCI400s in published data--with extruded powder. The last link is 222 Remington Magnum, also with some extruded powder loads with CCI400s.

    If you think 27 grains of Varget with a 55 is a modest load, load it up and shoot it over a chrono sometime.

    There is no reason that 223 Remington cannot be loaded with CCI400s for a bolt gun. The company that manufactures them even publishes the data.

    No idea where any other idea got started. People use CCI400s in pistols because they can't get pistol primers, not because they aren't rifle primers.
    Click to expand...
    26.0 grains of 2230 is listed as max with 55gr SP. That load absolutely pierces 400 primers in my 5.56 chambered AR15.
     
    #31
    Downzero said:
    Bullshit.

    Here it is straight from the source:





    I could keep posting but I believe this made the point. 223 Remington all the way to compressed loads with heavy bullets with CCI400s in published data--with extruded powder. The last link is 222 Remington Magnum, also with some extruded powder loads with CCI400s.

    If you think 27 grains of Varget with a 55 is a modest load, load it up and shoot it over a chrono sometime.

    There is no reason that 223 Remington cannot be loaded with CCI400s for a bolt gun. The company that manufactures them even publishes the data.

    No idea where any other idea got started. People use CCI400s in pistols because they can't get pistol primers, not because they aren't rifle primers.
    Click to expand...

    Looking at your data it appears Speer uses different primers for different loads, not CCI 400 across the board. Maybe it’s to prevent piercing primers in certain load combinations. In my experience heavy bullets are associated with pierced primers more frequently than light bullets.

    If you look carefully at the pics the OP posted you’ll see that the primer cup is beginning to push out the primer indent. That is not a good sign. That is why the OP should use a 450 primer, for the extra cup thickness, otherwise it will pierce.
     
    #32
    918v said:
    Looking at your data it appears Speer uses different primers for different loads, not CCI 400 across the board. Maybe it’s to prevent piercing primers in certain load combinations. In my experience heavy bullets are associated with pierced primers more frequently than light bullets.

    If you look carefully at the pics the OP posted you’ll see that the primer cup is beginning to push out the primer indent. That is not a good sign. That is why the OP should use a 450 primer, for the extra cup thickness, otherwise it will pierce.
    Click to expand...

    Federal and CCI are owned by the same company. That's why you see that published that way. If you thought they were just advertising a competitor's product, you were wrong about that too.

    There is nothing wrong with any of the primers listed in the first post.

    I have fired more CCI450 primers in my small rifles than all other types of primers combined, but that doesn't mean the CCI400 cannot be used where appropriate--which is with extruded powders in bolt guns.

    Badmonkey said:
    26.0 grains of 2230 is listed as max with 55gr SP. That load absolutely pierces 400 primers in my 5.56 chambered AR15.
    Click to expand...

    Nobody should be using a CCI400 in a firearm with a floating firing pin, that is one point of view I have agreed with throughout this thread.

    Also: not all published max loads are safe in all rifles. This is a common reloading practice thing that every handloader should know. I have blown primers out of the back of brass with supposedly safe loads out of books, even where they were safe in different weather conditions. That isn't an argument against the component--it's an argument against that load, which is obviously not safe in your rifle with any primer. Clearly a load that was unsafe with a non-magnum primer is even more unsafe with a hotter primer, even if the modest difference in cup thickness fooled you into believing it was safe.

    Primers are a sign of pressure, not themselves a sufficient condition for showing a safe load!
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Badmonkey
    #33
    Looking at the OP’s pics I see a problem brewing. All my cases have a nice round FP indent marks even when the primers are flat. His primers are about to pierce. His 400s gonna pierce before his 450s will.
     
    #34
    Downzero said:
    Federal and CCI are owned by the same company. That's why you see that published that way. If you thought they were just advertising a competitor's product, you were wrong about that too.

    There is nothing wrong with any of the primers listed in the first post.

    I have fired more CCI450 primers in my small rifles than all other types of primers combined, but that doesn't mean the CCI400 cannot be used where appropriate--which is with extruded powders in bolt guns.



    Nobody should be using a CCI400 in a firearm with a floating firing pin, that is one point of view I have agreed with throughout this thread.

    Also: not all published max loads are safe in all rifles. This is a common reloading practice thing that every handloader should know. I have blown primers out of the back of brass with supposedly safe loads out of books, even where they were safe in different weather conditions. That isn't an argument against the component--it's an argument against that load, which is obviously not safe in your rifle with any primer. Clearly a load that was unsafe with a non-magnum primer is even more unsafe with a hotter primer, even if the modest difference in cup thickness fooled you into believing it was safe.

    Primers are a sign of pressure, not themselves a sufficient condition for showing a safe load!
    Click to expand...

    They are when a bubble starts to form inside the FP indent.
     
    • Wow
    Reactions: 338dude
    #35
    918v said:
    They are when a bubble starts to form inside the FP indent.
    Click to expand...
    I have a rifle that does that with starting loads. Sorry but I'm not sorry for being unwilling to care about it. The spent primer is going in the trash anyway.
    918v said:
    Looking at the OP’s pics I see a problem brewing. All my cases have a nice round FP indent marks even when the primers are flat. His primers are about to pierce. His 400s gonna pierce before his 450s will.
    Click to expand...
    A load that is not safe with a CCI400 will not become more safe with a thicker cup primer. Over pressure is over pressure, regardless of whether it's apparent from the primer or requires special equipment to measure.
     
    #36
    Downzero said:
    I have a rifle that does that with starting loads. Sorry but I'm not sorry for being unwilling to care about it. The spent primer is going in the trash anyway.

    A load that is not safe with a CCI400 will not become more safe with a thicker cup primer. Over pressure is over pressure, regardless of whether it's apparent from the primer or requires special equipment to measure.
    Click to expand...

    If your starting load looks like that then maybe you should redo the load or figure out what’s wrong with your chamber.
     
    #37
    918v said:
    If your starting load looks like that then maybe you should redo the load or figure out what’s wrong with your chamber.
    Click to expand...
    What's wrong is the same as many factory rifles--the firing pin hole is bigger than it needs to be. As a result, the primer is pushed into it by pressure, it's pretty simple physics. It's also harmless in most cases.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 338dude
    #39
    Badmonkey said:
    What should I be looking for if those indicators mean I'm well past?

    In my 6.5 creedmoor loads the 450s don't flatten. I run an origin action, so there are no ejector marks. First indicator I see in my rifle that I am aware to look for is heavy bolt lift.
    Click to expand...
    Velocity vs a reloading manuel using the same components wold be a good start. If they say 2750 is 60k PSI, you are probably over 60kPSI if you are at 2850. Extrapolate for barrel length, but that is the basic idea.

    there are other thongs that kind of look like swipes also that can be from timing in an AR or a sharp ejector hole.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 338dude
    #40
    918v said:
    They are when a bubble starts to form inside the FP indent.
    Click to expand...
    My FP is little bit worn, last year I shot few hundred Magtechs until I noticed they were piercing, around 4-6% of them. I returned them back.
    My FP was probably torched in that. I have not had problems since but I do have a spare FP if the current one produces problems.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 338dude
    #41
    Near miss said:
    My FP is little bit worn, last year I shot few hundred Magtechs until I noticed they were piercing, around 4-6% of them. I returned them back.
    My FP was probably torched in that. I have not had problems since but I do have a spare FP if the current one produces problems.
    Click to expand...

    The bubble forming on the inside of the indent isn’t caused by the condition of the FP. I’ve seen this with brand new pins. It’s a pressure curve thing. I think your load is generating too much pressure too soon in the combustion cycle.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 338dude
    #42
    I believe you but I want to add that I have seen this even in the lowest pressure charges I have done. I think this case is shot with the minimum charge VV lists for N540. But the pressure loads may make it more pronounced?
    20220119_000141_remastered.jpg
    20220119_000242_remastered.jpg
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 338dude
    #43
    Doom said:
    If you were try this test in 6.5CM SRP brass you would likely see a significant difference. (62ksi vs 55ksi transducer).
    Click to expand...
    GRT shows my regular load 25.2 to be over 60k, 62K with SMK77 profile and 64K with Scenar77 profile. I use the Sierra profile because it matches my charge loads with the correct MVs so I assume it must be pretty close. The 25.5gr shows 67K. I doubt it calculates the pressure correctly after passing 55-60K mark though.
    (I am planning to lower the load to 24.8-24.9 and only use the higher pressure rounds for longer range as I only gain 30fps)
     
    #44
    This is news to me. How is it that I have loaded 1000's of 400s with 69's and 77's in AR's and never noticed one pierced? Never had a slam fire. I do run fairly moderate loads in the AR's. I guess ignorance has been bliss?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 338dude
    #46
    zeroz said:
    This is news to me. How is it that I have loaded 1000's of 400s with 69's and 77's in AR's and never noticed one pierced? Never had a slam fire. I do run fairly moderate loads in the AR's. I guess ignorance has been bliss?
    Click to expand...
    I'd be more concerned about hang fires. A good friend of mine and I both bought a bunch of surplus powder. He started having hang fires in his rifle. I had 3-4 jugs of the same powder and never had an issue. I found out later he was using regular small primers and not magnum. The issues went away when he used magnum primers. I haven't tested that theory myself as I always use magnum primers with ball powders as the book requires.

    I did use 400s in ARs when I didn't know better and never had an issue with extruded powders, but I'm not one to tempt fate. Any round that has been chambered has a dent in the primer.
     
    #47
    I just got this from CCI

    Question:
    What are the recommended CCI primers for use in the following cartridges: 6.5 Creedmoor SRP brass 223 Bolt Gun (w/extruded powders)

    John,
    With your 6.5 Creedmoor you would want to use our CCI BR4 primer that is our benchrest primer and with your 223 Rem you would want to use a CCI 400, BR4 or 41 primer.
    Thanks,

    It's interestingsting they didn't mention the 450 for 223 since the #41 is considered a magnum promer.
     
    #48
    Doom said:
    I just got this from CCI

    Question:
    What are the recommended CCI primers for use in the following cartridges: 6.5 Creedmoor SRP brass 223 Bolt Gun (w/extruded powders)

    John,
    With your 6.5 Creedmoor you would want to use our CCI BR4 primer that is our benchrest primer and with your 223 Rem you would want to use a CCI 400, BR4 or 41 primer.
    Thanks,

    It's interestingsting they didn't mention the 450 for 223 since the #41 is considered a magnum promer.
    Click to expand...
    I understood the 41 was made to be milspec for 556 or such while the 450 is the magnum rifle version.
    That said, I have no clue what sets them apart. I guess the 41 is somewhere in between?
    Downzero said:
    I'd be more concerned about hang fires. A good friend of mine and I both bought a bunch of surplus powder. He started having hang fires in his rifle. I had 3-4 jugs of the same powder and never had an issue. I found out later he was using regular small primers and not magnum. The issues went away when he used magnum primers. I haven't tested that theory myself as I always use magnum primers with ball powders as the book requires.

    I did use 400s in ARs when I didn't know better and never had an issue with extruded powders, but I'm not one to tempt fate. Any round that has been chambered has a dent in the primer.
    Click to expand...

    JRB tested primers and 450s did the worst. Both SD and MV category. I think primer lots just have a lot of tolerance in them or they play with different powders/case capacities massively different and you cannot make too big conclusions from any particular case. (It is data however, no matter what)
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 338dude
    #50
    Downzero said:
    It's not surprising to me at all. There is no need for a magnum primer to shoot 223 with extruded powders, which is what I've been saying all along.
    Click to expand...
    Well yes, and no.
    Why does the #41 exists then? I guess the reason is to go the extra mile, just as with crimped primer pockets.

    The thought behind this is the reason is that a customer making the order has noticed lack of quality in product (not necessarily with CCI, might be related to another manufacturer) but nonetheless, orders little bit stronger parts and fault mechanisms because it has experiences related to basic tolerances not living up to expectations.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Similar threads

    K
    Remington 7.5 vs CCI 450 in 223/223AI
    Replies
    6
    Views
    859
    Aftermath
    Aftermath
    Dildobaggins
    Win #41 vs CCI#41
    Replies
    31
    Views
    5K
    Cfshooter
    Cfshooter
    Max_The_Phoenix
    Accuracy expectations from 6.5 creedmoor chassis
    Replies
    38
    Views
    1K
    Max_The_Phoenix
    Max_The_Phoenix
    K
    223 and Berger 85.5g LR Hybrid?
    Replies
    94
    Views
    3K
    just browsing
    just browsing
    Bluebear
    X-bolt stainless stalker 30-06 @450
    Replies
    2
    Views
    406
    Bluebear
    Bluebear
    Top Bottom
    Back
    Home
    Forums
    Merch
    Alerts