Sellier & Bellot Large Rifle Primer for .308 Win Update

[Load Master]

NOTE: This is just for information and in no way is it a suggestion for use.

Communication with Sellier & Bellot has been slow due to Holidays and vacations this time of year. A few weeks back I supplied S&B with details of my load data, measurements and photos. Their conclusion, if I were using their 5,3 LR-SE primer I would not have pierced primers at the load levels shown at the high end of my load development.

According to Sellier & Bellot ammunition development engineer, they produce a .308 Winchester “Snipper” round with higher velocity and pressure using the same projectile as compared to my loads. This round uses their 5,3 LR-SE primer. The 5,3 LR-SE is designed to stand up to the higher pressure loads. This is why they recommend it for .308 Winchester and other high pressure rounds. The problem for us here in the states, the 5,3 LR-SE isn’t currently offered. The folks I’ve been in communications with are looking into this and what it would take to offer them here. I expect this will take a fair amount of time if they ever become available in the US.

I do not plan to run anywhere near the load shown on the right of the attached chart. My best groups came in about 1/3 up from the left. Regardless, I would still like to be using S&B’s 5,3 LR-SE primers.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

Their conclusion, if I were using their 5,3 LR-SE primer I would not have pierced primers at the load levels shown at the high end of my load development.

The primers they no longer sell, eh?

I have put in a request with S&B product support for help with this. Something I should have done earlier. If I look online for the 5.3 LR-SE that are listed in their product chart posted earlier, I can not find them. If they are for sale I don't know where. I'll report back what I hear directly from them.

 

[Load Master]

The primers they no longer sell, eh?

They are and have been in production. All of their .308 Win production ammo have them.

 

[thomas15]

Regardless, I would still like to be using S&B’s 5,3 LR-SE primers.

Why?

 

[Load Master]

Why?

According the S&B it is the correct one to use for .308 Winchester and the one they use in their factory produced ammo.

 

[LiveLife]

Regardless, I would still like to be using S&B’s 5,3 LR-SE primers.

Why?

As Load Master posted, S&B primer chart shows 5,3 LR-SE (V360542/0.70) for .308.- http://www.sellierbellot.us/index.php/download_file/view/675/163/

Chart shows "...Boxer/0.XX" where "0.XX" is the thickness of primer cup in mm:

I called Cabela's customer service number and asked if S&B LR I ordered was 5,3 LR or 5,3 LR-SE and I got email response back from Cabela's and looks like S&B LR primers Cabela's sells is the 5,3 LR with 0.63mm cup thickness (and not 5.3 LR-SE with 0.70mm cup thickness).- https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...0-hazmat-and-5-shipping.824550/#post-10615307

I will do careful work up of .308 loads using 168/175 gr bullet and Varget/H4895 powders and will post my results.

"Dear Mr. XXX,

Thank you for shopping with Cabela’s!

Thank you for your patience. We understand that you had requested some information on the measurement of the Large Rifle Primers (item #218684). We apologize that it had taken several days before emailing you with the information as we had to contact the S & B Customer Service for the correct sizes. This is what we were informed on the Primers:

5,3 LR – the nominal thickness of cup is 0,63 mm, and the primers are determined for civilian rifle cartridges, for standard rifle guns and hunting.

5.3 LR-SE or 5,3 LRM and the nominal thickness of cup is 0,70 mm.

If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us by phone or by email. Please reference both the Order Number as well as the Case Number by either method for information.

Sincerely,

Elaine G."

 

[RugerOldArmy]

Chart shows "...Boxer/0.XX" where "0.XX" is the thickness of primer cup in mm:

The assumption being the cup is the same metal? We don't even know that. It may well be.

It is hard to imagine a company that large, selling a product in litigious America, where it could be used in .308 Win, one of the most popular cartridges, being unsafe, and without a warning.

Nothing presented indicates other than the load discussed in the original thread possibly being too hot.

The SE primer could have simply been intended for a rifle that presented the possibility of a slamfire (Like CCI 34 vs CCI 200). All the cartridges listed in that chart were military cartridges. Note that .223 Rem primers come in two versions...one with a thicker cup. (Like CCI 400 vs CCI 41...where the 41 has a reduced risk of a slamfire in an AR).

It seems like a simple question wasn't asked: "Is the non-SE version suitable for .308 Win in a bolt action?"

Occam's Razor applies here: The simplest answer is the most likely correct one. I'd bet the SE version is intended to fill the same market niche as the CCI 34.

Their conclusion, if I were using their 5,3 LR-SE primer I would not have pierced primers at the load levels shown at the high end of my load development.

I'm surprised S&B would admit any liability for their product failing, in a load they never examined, for primers with no warning on the packaging being unsuitable for .308 Win, with a load within industry standards...let alone to speculate that their other primer offering would handle such a load. How often do you see a corporation do something like that?

 

[HankC]

It seems like a simple question wasn't asked: "Is the non-SE version suitable for .308 Win in a bolt action?"

It is asked and answered in my post in the original thread, post #45
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...t-of-bolt-carrier.824391/page-2#post-10607095
Also note that the SE is not listed at the parent S&B CZ website anymore. My post #18 in original thread! Now we keep going back to the original thread!
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...pin-out-of-bolt-carrier.824391/#post-10606635
Don't know why S&B would load the SE primer to their "Sniper" 308 ammo but don't list it in their primer list. Military only?
And note the primer cup thickness measurements in posts #80-85 in original thread!

 

[RugerOldArmy]

It is asked and answered in my post in the original thread, post #45

I noticed that Hank. But...

According the S&B it is the correct one to use for .308 Winchester and the one they use in their factory produced ammo.

...it looks like the OP disagrees and is telling others only the SE version is suitable.

In my mind, it stands to reason that the thicker cup in the SE version is intended for rifles with a floating firing pin, with the chance of a slamfire, filling market niches similar to CCI's 34 and 41.

But the OP stated:

The 5,3 LR-SE is designed to stand up to the higher pressure loads.

Silly question: Aren't there other cartridges that use LR Primers with a higher pressure than .308 Win, that S&B didn't list for the SE? So why would they tell the OP the SE was for higher pressure loads, and not list those cartridges? .270 Win uses LR primers and has a max pressure of 65,000 psi. 7.62 NATO has a max pressure of 60,191 psi. .308 Win max pressure is 62,000 psi.

You didn't link a pretty picture Hank, but your logic looks good to me.

 

[Load Master]

RugerOldArmy, you ask some good questions and I believe that finding the answers a challenge from S&B for a number of reasons. Some of the issues, the primers are manufactured in Czech Republic and the language difference, even though a lot of them speak English, it is still at least a second language and I’m not smart enough to speak or read Czech. There is a large time lag between emails in both directions.

The SE primer could have simply been intended for a rifle that presented the possibility of a slamfire

From what I’ve read from reputable sources, “Slam Fire” abatement has more to do with anvil to cup clearance than cup hardness or thickness. CCI has a number of good write ups about slam fire tolerance and that the primer design is a last resort effort for avoidance and is no guarantee.


Primer pressure tolerance is controlled by cup thickness and hardness. In James Calhoon’s article, “PRIMERS AND PRESSURE”, he said, “With large rifle primers all being the same thickness [.027”], choose a primer that makes the most accurate group, is the shiniest, cheapest or whatever, as they all have similar pressure capabilities.” Besides being at the high end of my load development, the pierced primer is at least in part due to Sellier & Bellot 5,6 LR being only .024” thick compared to their 5,6 LR-SE and most other brands that are .027” thick. I believe this is the primary reason they list the 5,6 LR-SE for .308 Win in their primer usage chart referenced earlier.

I'm surprised S&B would admit any liability for their product failing, in a load they never examined, for primers with no warning on the packaging being unsuitable for .308 Win, with a load within industry standards...let alone to speculate that their other primer offering would handle such a load. How often do you see a corporation do something like that?

I'm not an attorney, maybe your are, so I have no idea where their reply shows "liability". As far as "warning on the packaging", I personally have never seen this with any brand of primer. Can you show an example of this? With most reloading components, the proper use of them is on the person doing the reloading, isn't it?

 

[mstreddy]

As far as "warning on the packaging", I personally have never seen this with any brand of primer. Can you show an example of this? With most reloading components, the proper use of them is on the person doing the reloading, isn't it?

Remington makes and sells 2 types of small rifle primers. One of them the Remington 6 1/2 has the following warning on it:

Warning: Remington does not recommend this primer for use in the 17 Remington, 222 Remington, 223 Remington, 204 Ruger, 17 Remington Fireball. Use the 7-1/2 Small Rifle Bench Rest primer in these cartridges. This 6-1/2 Small Rifle primer is primarily designed for use in the 22 Hornet.

The warning is on the side of the box, flat.

During the shortage, many, including me, bought the 6 1/2 without knowing they would NOT work in 223 Rem.

 

[Load Master]

mstreddy, interesting. I guess "High Intensity" means higher pressure rounds. I wonder if 6½ = .65mm or .025" and the 7½ = .75mm or .029"?

Here are a couple more warnings from CCI and Sellier & Bellot

 

[RugerOldArmy]

mstreddy, interesting. I guess "High Intensity" means higher pressure rounds.

Little need to guess 6 1/2's target cartridge is the .22 Hornet. The warning itself cites higher pressure cartridges like the .17 Rem, .222 Rem, and .223 Rem. The fact that you've never seen it before means that, like all of us, we need to question our assumptions.

From what I’ve read from reputable sources, “Slam Fire” abatement has more to do with anvil to cup clearance than cup hardness or thickness. CCI has a number of good write ups about slam fire tolerance and that the primer design is a last resort effort for avoidance and is no guarantee.

CCI also has two primers, the 34 and the 41, specifically designed for rifles used by the military with free floating firing pins...and they have good write-ups on that too. Again, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the SE primer is intended for a similar niche. The cartridges they listed, all had a military history. The 34 and 41 also have a cup thickness greater than their 200 and 400.

Primer pressure tolerance is controlled by cup thickness and hardness. In James Calhoon’s article, “PRIMERS AND PRESSURE”, he said, “With large rifle primers all being the same thickness [.027”], choose a primer that makes the most accurate group, is the shiniest, cheapest or whatever, as they all have similar pressure capabilities.” Besides being at the high end of my load development, the pierced primer is at least in part due to Sellier & Bellot 5,6 LR being only .024” thick compared to their 5,6 LR-SE and most other brands that are .027” thick. I believe this is the primary reason they list the 5,6 LR-SE for .308 Win in their primer usage chart referenced earlier.

One would imagine the properties of the metal alloy used, and the plating of that metal (if any) also impacts the strength of the primer. Calhoon was an interesting guy, who made interesting rifles, and wildcatted a bit. Yet saying: "With large rifle primers all being the same thickness [.027”]" was a generalization these threads have already proved untrue.

It is common knowledge that the US military has their own rifle primer specifications. Cup thickness is part of these, and as CCI describes their 34 and 41 as "Military small rifle primer with NATO sensitivity.", it reveals their intent, which you seem intent on second guessing.

Most of us in this forum have developed loads. Many of us tested a load in a range we determined to be too hot. I find the discussion interesting LoadMaster, but I think you're breaking new ground on the forum by clinging to the hope of faulting a primer, when the most plausible explanation is that your hotter loads were simply hot. If you aspire to be a "LoadMaster", consider how a master would analyze the information presented by a primer piercing. Maybe rather than faulting the primer's applicability to the cartridge, you could measure case-head expansion, see if your firing pin was sharp/damaged, tested if your measure threw an errant high charge, or consider if you simply created a load beyond the upper end of the load range. You previously posted about a casehead separation...that should be food for thought for you too.

You didn't have a slamfire, but there may be some merit in this discussion, simply in terms of whether S&B has an offering similar to the CCI No. 34, for rifles with a free floating pin in which 'NATO Sensitivity' is desirable.

There is no shame in having developed a test load that testing proved too hot. However, there is no honor or merit in developing an elaborate theory to avoid culpability for simply running tests that reached the upper end of a load range.

There are a lot of smart handloaders on this forum. But how smug would it be for any one of them to simply assume they knew better than the collective wisdom of a major ammunition manufacturer? Mistakes do happen...this doesn't appear to be one by S&B.

 

[Load Master]

Little need to guess 6 1/2's target cartridge is the .22 Hornet. The warning itself cites higher pressure cartridges like the .17 Rem, .222 Rem, and .223 Rem. The fact that you've never seen it before means that, like all of us, we need to question our assumptions.

CCI also has two primers, the 34 and the 41, specifically designed for rifles used by the military with free floating firing pins...and they have good write-ups on that too. Again, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the SE primer is intended for a similar niche. The cartridges they listed, all had a military history.

One would imagine the properties of the metal alloy used, and the plating of that metal (if any) also impacts the strength of the primer. Calhoon was an interesting guy, who made interesting rifles, and wildcatted a bit. Yet saying: "With large rifle primers all being the same thickness [.027”]" was a generalization these threads have already proved untrue.

It is common knowledge that the US military has their own rifle primer specifications. Cup thickness is part of these, and as CCI describes their 34 and 41 as "Military small rifle primer with NATO sensitivity.", it reveals their intent, which you seem intent on second guessing.

Most of us in this forum have developed loads. Many of us tested a load in a range we determined to be too hot. I find the discussion interesting LoadMaster, but I think you're breaking new ground on the forum by clinging to the hope of faulting a primer, when the most plausible explanation is that your hotter loads were simply hot. If you aspire to be a "LoadMaster", consider how a master would analyze the information presented by a primer piercing. Maybe rather than faulting the primer's applicability to the cartridge, you could measure case-head expansion, see if your firing pin was sharp/damaged, tested if your measure threw an errant high charge, or consider if you simply created a load beyond the upper end of the load range. You previously posted about a casehead separation...that should be food for thought for you too.

You didn't have a slamfire, but there may be some merit in this discussion, simply in terms of whether S&B has an offering similar to the CCI No. 34, for rifles with a free floating pin in which 'NATO Sensitivity' is desirable.

First off, my handle, "Load Master" happens to be one of presses I use. You seem bent on personal attacks. Let me be clear, for the benefit of others here. I am NOT an expert.

Is sharing of information and experiences not allowed by all?

If you don't like what I'm posting, provide some useful data with sources or move on. Your intent to belittle and flame my thread are true signs of a troll. Go troll someone else!

 

[RugerOldArmy]

I can see how my reference to you handle offended. My apologies. I admit, I felt you were rationalizing a bit. Sorry, I'm direct, honest, and occasionally blunt. I'll bow out of this thread. Stay safe.

 

[Slamfire]

From what I’ve read from reputable sources, “Slam Fire” abatement has more to do with anvil to cup clearance than cup hardness or thickness. CCI has a number of good write ups about slam fire tolerance and that the primer design is a last resort effort for avoidance and is no guarantee.

PATR 2700, Encyclopedia of Explosives, gives this information into the design of primers:

The sensitivity of a primer for a given firing pin/weapon system is then designed into the primer by the proper choice of the thickness of the base of the primer cup, the point radius of the anvil, and the degree of compression of the mixture between the anvil point and the cup. This is controlled by the degree to which the anvil is compressed into the cup during manufacture of the primer. In addition, some influence of further compression can be achieved when the primer is inserted into the cartridge case and crimped.

From what I have read, Federal makes the most sensitive primers on the market and that is primarily due to the primer mix. They do make a mil spec primer, and people have reported that they were told by Federal that the primer cup was thicker on those primers. Primers vary by sensitivity and if we ever get a good data dump on primer testing, it will be surprising to see how little energy input it takes to ignite some primers. It is not something that can be dialed in at the factory, primer cake varies even though incentives are paid to the workers who make the most consistent primer mix.