[jmg8550]

Anyone know if CCI no.34 primers are available yet? I have searched high and low, online and locally, and none to be found anywhere.

 

[jmg8550]

I found a box of CCI No. 34 primers and I am a little troubled. Did CCI change the color of their primers? The last box I bought they are silver, the new ones are gold colored. Anyone have any info here? Or did I get ripped off?

 

[cutter]

I don't know about the color, but if you will forgive the ignorance, what is so special about these #34 primers?

I am assuming that they are a new product line from CCI. What is it that they are made to do, specifically? (And don't come back with, "ignite powder") I mean, are they for a specific round or are they electrically fired or what?

 

[RIKA]

Primers for handloading used to be silver colored to distinguish them from factory loaded primers. A while back the companys decided to cut costs by making them all the same color. Same primers, same color now. I have some old silver colored WW and some new gold colored WW so this sounds reasonable.

From a very knowledgable handloading friend.

RIKA

 

[cutter]

Oh, so they are not new? Sorry, I misunderstood. Thanks for the info, RIKA.

 

[jmg8550]

CCI No. 34 primers are military spec for auto or semi auto rifles. They have a thicker cup to help avoid slamfires. They are considered magnum primers. The Speer reloading book says you can use them as a replacement for CCI 250's. They are for 7.62X51, .308, 30-06, and 7.62X39 Russian. Could probably be used for any caliber that uses large rifle primers.

 

[cutter]

Thanks jmg. I tend to use Winchester primers and do not know much about CCI product. Always good to aquire new info.

 

[DaRkWoLf]

CCI "Arsenal" beefed-up-cup primers, while reducing theoretical chance of slamfire, are also quite inconsistent and add anywhere from 30-50 FPS to your range of Standard Deviation. Filtering by weight doesn't seem to remedy the issue either (and we're talking +/- 300 micrograms here). I'm not entirely sure why this occurs, but it is consistently a performance bottleneck with both the #34s and #41s.

IME the beefed-up primers are unnecessary. I have no problem running BR-2s in my AR-10, and safety evaluations did not show abnormal cause for concern.

 

[Rich Z]

I've heard some people say that they just don't like CCI primers, but I've used them pretty much exclusively for years with no issues. Only had one misfire to date out of many many thousands of reloads. I've got quite a stash of them somewhere in ammo cans. And when I get back into reloading one of these days, they will be what I will be using.

 

[arebindixie]

I've found CCI primers to be hard. I usually use Winchester.

 

[cutter]

IIRC, equipment manufacturers generally warn against using CCI primers in their priming equipment. Why, I do not know. I have never had a problem with seating them with a Lee autoprime. I just don't use them because they tend to be more expensive than the Winchesters and Federals. I have had very few problems with any brand of primers so long as they are not exposed to moisture. Of course, then all bets are off no matter what brand you use.

IIRC, the warnings about CCI centers around a danger of detonation during primer seating. I personally have never seen it or had it happen to me. Then again, I am gentle with the priming process. If it doesn't feel right to me, I stop and check. Jamming a live primer home no matter what is always a bad idea.

 

[jmg8550]

CCI "Arsenal" beefed-up-cup primers, while reducing theoretical chance of slamfire, are also quite inconsistent and add anywhere from 30-50 FPS to your range of Standard Deviation. Filtering by weight doesn't seem to remedy the issue either (and we're talking +/- 300 micrograms here). I'm not entirely sure why this occurs, but it is consistently a performance bottleneck with both the #34s and #41s.

IME the beefed-up primers are unnecessary. I have no problem running BR-2s in my AR-10, and safety evaluations did not show abnormal cause for concern.

I have used them exclusively for reloading. I'm not sold on them being inconsistent. I have printed 3/4 moa groups with them. And every one of the primers has gone bang. Just my experience.

 

[DaRkWoLf]

Cutter,

I have never seen this warning against CCIs of which you speak. 0.o

I'm definitely with you on careful primer seating. I also mechanically set depth/limit arm extension though.

JMG8550,

I've never had a CCI fail me either.

I would say that you would probably see gains from switching to the regular CCI or other primers though. If you're getting 3/4 MOA using those primers you're doing well. May I inquire as to your load and gun, and the number of shots in the string you're mentioning?

I get quite bored sometimes, which is usually followed by getting quite eccentric, and I test/meddle with things extensively. I've never been able to get a good SD, and hence comparatively good grouping, from the CCI Arsenal primers; I have no informed guess as to why. To further clarify, we're talking in 10 round strings out of Noveske AR-10s and 15s.

 

[jmg8550]

I am shooting these groups out of a Springfield M1A Super Match. Very tight chambering. A Douglas 1/10 twist barrel. These groups are prone with bipod, 5 shot strings. I am also using a Burris XTR 3-12 scope and a Smith Enterprise mount. The particular bullet load is Nosler match brass, 168gr. Sierra Matchking bullets, CCI No. 34 primers, and 41.5 grains H4895 powder. Muzzle velocity is around 2550 fps. I have been told that as long as you seat primers to the proper depth, you shouldn't have any problems, but I don't want to risk a slamfire in that rifle. Call me paranoid, but that's just my extra insurance against such catastrophe.

 

[neolithic hunter]

cci primers have uber soft cups. i have had slam fires in pistols when using them. therefore i don't use cci primers anymore. can't trust them. wont use them ever again.

 

[jmg8550]

cci primers have uber soft cups. i have had slam fires in pistols when using them. therefore i don't use cci primers anymore. can't trust them. wont use them ever again.

Never used CCI in pistols. I have always used Magtech primers for handguns.

 

[Rich Z]

Well, in this one thread, we have some saying CCI's primer cups are too hard, and others claiming they are too soft........ :eek3:

I've used them pretty much exclusively for years, in both rifles and handguns and never had an issue with them.

 

[jmg8550]

I have only used Magtech pistol primers because they were the only ones available at the time. I like CCI products. Always have had good luck with them. I know slamfires are usually caused by high primers or a firearm malfunction.

 

[John in AR]

IIRC, equipment manufacturers generally warn against using CCI primers in their priming equipment. Why, I do not know. I have never had a problem with seating them with a Lee autoprime.

The old Lee 1000 and Autoprime I have both have specific warnings against using Federal primers; haven't seen (don't recall, at least) any warnings against CCI.

 

[neolithic hunter]

now i have never had a cci rifle primer fail. but i have had the pistol primers fail. thus i feel that i can't trust them even in a rifle 100%. i have used the #34's and the only problem i have had with them is that they are not even close to consistent shot to shot. in my 308 f/tr rifle i shoot 42.0 grains of imr4895 and federal 210m primers. the muzzle velocity is 2650 + or -, 14 fps the sd is less than 5 fps so i'm happy with it. if i use the same load, same rifle, same bullet, and cci #34 primers my MV is 2620 fps + or -, 120 fps so on a typical day just changing the primers will give me a vertical of almost 8" 's at 600 yrds. with wichester LR primers my MV is 2710 fps + or -, 40 fps but it doesn't give me the groups i like to see. so what cci #34 primers i have are in standard ball plinking ammo.