Servicio Aventuras vs. CCI Primers Updated Nov.3

J-Bar

J-Bar

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
4,996
Location
Springfield, MO
I gave my S&W 1977 Model 27-2 some exercise with .38 Special loads. 12 shots in each group, 158 grain RNFP bullets over 4.0 grains of BE-86, 10 yards, elbows rested. The upper group used CCI primers, the lower group was Servicios Aventuras primers. I know 12 shots is not a statistically significant sample size, but the difference in groups is intriguing. In your experience, can primers make that much difference?

IMG_2831.jpeg
 
Should not make that much of a difference, at least in the groups you posted. Having said that I have never used Servicio primers. I can tell you when I've checked groups/load data comparing cci, federal, or winchester the difference was very little if any. The only true way is to check pressure difference in primers which is not easy unless you have a test lab. Did you chrono any of the two loads?
 
The only time I saw a significant accuracy difference between primers was with TAC in the .308... between standard CCI #200's, and CCI Arsenal #34's. It was my understanding that TAC did NOT like Magnum primers, so I loaded up a test batch between the two. No doubt in my mind... TAC hated the #34's.

I'm not super familiar with BE-86... I tested it and I didn't like it... but I'm not surprised you might have seen something like that. From what I've read, the Servicio primers are quite hard... harder than CCI's, which is saying something if I'm to believe hoary internet lore... so it's possible you had some irregular ignition, enough to affect accuracy. Personally, I would try those primers with a different powder... I know some fawn over BE-86, but I found it to be quite temperamental. Perhaps the combination of the two...
 
I found the Servicio primers to be harder to seat in the case using a hand primer, and harder to fire in my .38’s once the round was loaded as I had a few FTF.

If your S&W isn’t striking the primer with gusto there certainly could be an inconsistent ignition issue. But I don’t know if that one thing could make that much of a difference at 30 feet. (At 30 yards, I think it sure might.)

How did the rounds chrono? (If you did.)

Stay safe.
 
Riomouse911 said:
I found the Servicio primers to be harder to seat in the case using a hand primer, and harder to fire in my .38’s once the round was loaded as I had a few FTF.

If your S&W isn’t striking the primer with gusto there certainly could be an inconsistent ignition issue. But I don’t know if that one thing could make that much of a difference at 30 feet. (At 30 yards, I think it sure might.)

How did the rounds chrono? (If you did.)

Stay safe.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. It could be delayed ignition from primer seating variance.
 
Charlie98 said:
The only time I saw a significant accuracy difference between primers was with TAC in the .308... between standard CCI #200's, and CCI Arsenal #34's. It was my understanding that TAC did NOT like Magnum primers, so I loaded up a test batch between the two. No doubt in my mind... TAC hated the #34's.

I'm not super familiar with BE-86... I tested it and I didn't like it... but I'm not surprised you might have seen something like that. From what I've read, the Servicio primers are quite hard... harder than CCI's, which is saying something if I'm to believe hoary internet lore... so it's possible you had some irregular ignition, enough to affect accuracy. Personally, I would try those primers with a different powder... I know some fawn over BE-86, but I found it to be quite temperamental. Perhaps the combination of the two...
Click to expand...
FYI. It's not just TAC that doesn't like #34 or #41s. We've been doing some extensive testing and I can tell you right now that the military primers suck real bad for getting decent accuracy and SD's.

Also, I'm curious what you mean by "tempermental" with BE86. I bought a bunch a few years back and I've been super happy with it. It is a little dirtier powder but I get crazy velocities and it meters well. Numbers are ridiculously consistent.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your insights.

The loads/shots were not chronographed, but were made at an indoor gun store range. I have more of each lot of cartridges and will compare them again next week in a different revolver just for curiosity. I'll update the results.
My guns all have factory original springs and still some of the SA primers do not ignite on the first strike. All the CCI primers were well behaved. I don't plan to purchase more SA primers as long as American primers are available.
 
longdayjake said:
FYI. It's not just TAC that doesn't like #34 or #41s. We've been doing some extensive testing and I can tell you right now that the military primers suck real bad for getting decent accuracy and SD's.
Click to expand...

No, I got that. I did an informal test some years ago with #41's and H335, in the 5.56mm that changed my thinking a little on the Arsenal primers. Unfortunately, I'm stacked with them, so I'll continue to use them where accuracy isn't the primary concern.
 
S & A SPP primers were something I purchased in desperation when the shelves were empty. I never had a miss fire with them but I clean the pocket and turn the casing 180 and press again when loading them. Now that there are CCI primers in stock locally,I have moved them to the WTSHTF stock category. I feel a lot more secure knowing there are 2000 on hand if needed in future droughts which I'm sure will be coming
 
Last edited:
J-Bar said:
Thanks for your insights.

The loads/shots were not chronographed, but were made at an indoor gun store range. I have more of each lot of cartridges and will compare them again next week in a different revolver just for curiosity. I'll update the results.
My guns all have factory original springs and still some of the SA primers do not ignite on the first strike. All the CCI primers were well behaved. I don't plan to purchase more SA primers as long as American primers are available.
Click to expand...
I feel your pain! During the mega drought I bought 1,500 SA primers off GB. The price wasn’t outrageous, and I was getting into the danger zone of running out of SPP, so I took a chance. I loaded the 1,500 SA SPP that I bought and had some FTF issues on the first strike with several of my S&W .38’s. (On the bright side, they do make decent “flinch trainers” though!)

I bought a bunch of Federal, Winchester and CCI when those reappeared, I am hoping to be done with the SA primed cases soon.

Just my little bit of experience with them, YMMV.

Stay safe.
 
J-Bar said:
I gave my S&W 1977 Model 27-2 some exercise with .38 Special loads. 12 shots in each group, 158 grain RNFP bullets over 4.0 grains of BE-86, 10 yards, elbows rested. The upper group used CCI primers, the lower group was Servicios Aventuras primers. I know 12 shots is not a statistically significant sample size, but the difference in groups is intriguing. In your experience, can primers make that much difference?

View attachment 1177988
Click to expand...
Most likely primer seating variance...the servicio are a bit harder to seat, so you end up with more variance in seating depth, and that will make a difference on accuracy.
 
Perhaps, although I'm not sure what more I can do to improve uniformity. I load only Starline brass. I'm using a Dillon 550 without a primer feed, putting each primer into the press manually, and making sure the press lever makes a complete stroke on the repriming operation. The tops of the SA primers appear flattened by the lever pressure.

IMG_2836.jpeg


I think SAs are just damn hard little buggers!
 
J-Bar said:
Perhaps, although I'm not sure what more I can do to improve uniformity. I load only Starline brass. I'm using a Dillon 550 without a primer feed, putting each primer into the press manually, and making sure the press lever makes a complete stroke on the repriming operation. The tops of the SA primers appear flattened by the lever pressure.

View attachment 1178041


I think SAs are just damn hard little buggers!
Click to expand...
I also had issues getting the servicios to fire on the first strike in my 9mm pistols. It was brand new brass with tight primer pockets. Both a Cz P-01 and PSA dagger (dagger was worse with ftf). Loaded on LCT.

I then used them in 38 special with once fired cases and sat the primers below flush no issues. Loaded on Hornady LNL.
 
I have only used a few SA small pistol primers. But having issues with hand priming and some bench priming, I go to my ram prime when working with something new or different. So far with just a few hundred rounds in 38 Special (in Taurus revolvers) and 9mm (in a Masada pistol) I have had no problems. I had problems before with hand primers, even though all were seated well, some gun/primer applications I got an occasional FTF. When I went to a ram prime, my FTFs dropped to zero. For the last 20 or so years I have had no problems when I ram prime (and I normally "sensitize"/preload primers)...
 
A common problem with foreign primers is that the primer diameter may be metric and are larger diameter than domestic. This makes them harder to seat. You really have to push them in hard. The Ginex primers from Bosnia I think were measured with a micrometer and were 2-3 ten thousandths larger in diameter. I have had a couple of misfires with them (out of a few thousand) but they fired on the second strike so it was obviously my fault. I have to make an extra effort to seat the foreign primers that I don't need to do with domestic primers. I suspect many misfires are from people not seating them deep enough.
 
longdayjake said:
FYI. It's not just TAC that doesn't like #34 or #41s. We've been doing some extensive testing and I can tell you right now that the military primers suck real bad for getting decent accuracy and SD's.

Also, I'm curious what you mean by "tempermental" with BE86. I bought a bunch a few years back and I've been super happy with it. It is a little dirtier powder but I get crazy velocities and it meters well. Numbers are ridiculously consistent.
Click to expand...
I'd be awful interested with any observations or data that you have on primer powder interactions. I like to have good info like that when things get tight. I was surprised how many br shooters were using srm with varget. The 450 is apparently much more poplar than the br-4.
 
J-Bar said:
Sorry to be ignorant, but I don't understand how a penny with cup in it helps. Can you explain, please?
Click to expand...
The penny makes the primer plugger go up further to seat the primer a little deeper. It's a trick some guy came up years ago because after a while the original base wears out. That press has 120,802 rounds on it, so I added the penny couple of years back.

If you youtube or google the fix, you use a penny because its soft and spark resistance.
 
longdayjake said:
Also, I'm curious what you mean by "tempermental" with BE86. I bought a bunch a few years back and I've been super happy with it. It is a little dirtier powder but I get crazy velocities and it meters well. Numbers are ridiculously consistent.
Click to expand...

I bought BE-86 as a test powder for short barrel 9mm and .45ACP loads. I actually hit a velocity threshold with it in 9mm, shooting it out of my Kahr pistols (3.1" and 3.6" barrels) where more powder did not contribute to more velocity, it was not burning well, and was dumping powder on my arm like a blowback .22 pistol. I also tried it in the .45ACP, with both 200grn and 230grn bullets; I had to fool with COL to get the velocity numbers I was looking for. I ran 5 different powders with your RMR 200grn PSWC, BE-86 turned in the worst accuracy of the bunch... but excellent accuracy with WST and Unique, and reasonable accuracy with W244.

I understand I'm basically alone by not liking BE-86... it just didn't work well for me in my use. My barometer has always been Unique... which for me burns well, burns consistently, and produces at least reasonable accuracy, even in short barrels. It's my opinion BE-86 is too slow for what I wanted it to do, and may have been a poor choice... that's my fault. It very likely would work well elsewhere for me... I loaded some in .45 Colt, for example, where it did fairly well... but that's not what I wanted that powder for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
LR vs. LRM primers
Replies
6
Views
1K
dirtman
D
R
  • Locked
CCI vs Wolf: Small Pistol Primers
Replies
4
Views
847
cheygriz
cheygriz
J-Bar
  • Locked
Minimum Unique Charge in .38 Special Range Report
Replies
5
Views
368
bluetopper
bluetopper
someguy2800
  • Locked
Cold weather powder/primer temp sensitivity testing results
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
Bbear
Bbear
Rodfac
  • Locked
Great .357, everyday load?
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
cfullgraf
cfullgraf
Back
Top