I' m posting this question as a spinoff of another discussion in another thread.

It has come to my attention that the 209 primers we use, which are designed for shotgun shells, may be just too powerful for our application and result in increased fouling and a possible reduction in accuracy.

So the questions I have are as follows:

What brand of 209 primer, if any, are known to have the lowest power?

I currently have a box of Winchester 209 primers that say on the package that they are for muzzleloaders. Does this mean they are formulated differently or is this label simply a marketing ploy to get customers to not second-quess their compatability with 209 ignition systems?

Does anyone know of any plans by the major reloading supply manufacturers to produce truly muzzleloader specific 209 primers?

There is an article on Precision Rifle' s site about them experimenting with cut-down .22hornet brass loaded with small rifle primers, which are much less powerful than 209 primers, that fit into a modified T/C Encore breachplug. Their results seem to indicate that the small rifle primers create much less fouling and inprove accuracy. The guys at PR seem to think that 209 primers create flyers and larger groups because the blast of the primer is great enough to move the bullet/sabot off the charge before the powder is fully ignited. This reduces accuracy. It would be nice to have a reduded power 209 system, as Lord knows we don' t need yet another ignition system!

Mike

Questions?

Did Precision ever determine how a bullet can move before the powder ignites? If the bullet moves, the powder behind it must move & I don' t understand how that' s possible with " loose" 777' s instantaneous ignition and a firm loading of the projectile. The only way this may happen is with the use of powder pellets which slide down easily -- Powerbelt bullets which go down the tube easy & very little arm pressure afterwards with the ramrod.

If what you' re saying is correct, then how do makers of Federal primers stay in business because their primers are the strongest. Put a live Federal primer on your unloaded rifle -- insert the ramrod -- fire the rifle after making sure no one is in front of the rifle bore -- in most cases, it will discharge. None of the rest do that!

Triple Se7en, I sort of suspected you were a ramrod shooter. That demonstration of yours might tend to lend even more credibility to what Cecil is doing. Most ramrods are pretty heavy compared to a bullet and since there is no powder to burn, the ramrod is flying out of that bore because of the pressure developed (even without a seal). So it isn' t much of a stretch that a bullet (and the powder) could be moved by that pressure even before the pressure developed by powder burn is sufficient to do the same.??? You would have to be looking at that aspect of the process in pico-seconds, but....

I think Cecil is onto something here, even if for the wrong reason. 209s are too hot. Musket caps are also too hot, IMHO. Something about 2-3 times the strength of a #11 with a design that would incorporate easy handling and easy, less problematic breech plug/nipple design might be just the ticket. But, the route Cecil takes is a bit too complex to become mainstream.

So then, why has no primer manufacturer simply developed a reduced power 209 primer for muzzleloaders? They make varying primer strengths for every centerfire application, so how hard could it be?

I would switch back to hot #11' s or musket caps if my Knight could shoot them without so much hassle. The #11 adapter disc is a pain in the rear at best.

Mike

209s are overkill with an inline , stick to #11s or musket caps . Inlines are the most popular type now because of their reliable ignition , there is no need for a spark hotter than musket caps . I fire #11s only in all of mine , and I' ve never had a misfire .

The only time a reduced-power 209 primer works well is with low-mount scopes mounted over an action that produces a lot of blowback from ignition.

If you want long-range shots (beyond 150) the hotter & faster ignition (777 & Federal primers) works best to consume more powder & increase velocity. ... accuracy may not be included so practice.. practice.. practice those shots.

Oh Kevin, you just jinked yourself. I remember last summer, telling people, if you have a misfire, you didn' t clean the gun right, or don' t know what you are doing. Bragging that I have never had a misfire in over a decade. So here I am in swamps looking at a sika buck getting all cocky. I was thinking wow, what am I going to do with the rest of my day waiting for my buddies to shoot a sika. Then I had the dreaded misfire. It was smack from the hunting gods. But the sika didn' t move. They don' t run like whitetails but stand very still. Again, another misfire. Got out of the treestand and took apart. All looked fine. So I changed the nipple. And testfired, with a loud bang. I am superstious now. Maybe it was my pellets I was using. But after something like that, it tends to make hunters change up.

ALL 209' s are a lot more powerful than ANY No. 11 or Musket cap!! As a matter of interest, the old-time caplock rifle target shooters all contended that the WEAKEST caps gave the best accuracy. This would concur with the article you read. Some of them even built primer adaptors to allow centerfire primers to be used instead of caps!! Read Ned Roberts' book, THE MUZZLELOADING CAPLOCK RIFLE, if you really want to get some true insights into this subject!! However, since the vast majority of all fouling in a muzzleloader stems from the dirty characteristics of the various ML powders, I really doubt that the primer used has much noticeable impact on the amount of fouling produced by any given amount of powder!!



" It seems very difficult to impress most reloaders with the fact that every rifle is an individual, and what proves to be a maximum load in one may be quite mild in another, and vice versa." Bob Hagel, GAME LOADS AND PRACTICAL BALLISTICS FOR THE AMERICAN HUNTER, 1977

bigcountry ,
it ain' t bragging if you' re speaking the truth . I' m very anal about keeping my rifles clean , and only a defective cap would change that . Pellets caused me some worry since they are harder to ignite than loose powder , but the good ol' #11s have performed flawlessly .

eldegulleo ,
nobody' s arguing that a 209 is hotter than #11 or musket caps , it' s a fact that they are . My position is that they are not necessary , and sometimes undesirable in an inline . Regardless of what anyone says I refuse to believe that they confer any advantage in igniton except maybe with pellets . Sidelocks would derive more benefit from them than inlines . PS: excessive use of exclamation points is similar to keeping the caplocks on while typing in e-speak , I heard you just fine .

I use Fiocchi primers in my knight. I have shot over 10,000 of them in my shot shells and never had one fail. As far as accuracy goes because of primers ?? I just shoot em and the bullets go where I point the bang stick.

There is nothing bad I can think of regarding the use of a 209 primer for ignition. I shot about 50 rounds last weekend and only cleaned the gun 1 time around the 30th round. We were shooting water jugs and sand-filled-cans out to 150 yards. It was a blast and I didn' t think that clean up was any more or less painfull than my bud with an old Kentucky hammer gun.