• Hey All! Lately there has been more and more scammers on the forum board. They register and replies to members requests for guns and/or parts or other things. The reply contains a gmail or hotmail address or similar ”anonymous” email addresses which they want you to reply to. DO NOT ANSWER ANY STRANGE MESSAGES! They often state something like this: ”Hello! Saw your post about purchasing a stock for a Safari. KnuckleheadBob has one. Email him at: [email protected]” If you receive any strange messages: Check the status of whoever message you. If they have no posts and signed up the same day or very recently, stay away. Same goes for other members they might refer to. Check them too and if they are long standing members, PM them and ask if the message is legit. Most likely it’s not. Then use the report function in each message or post so I can kick them out! Beware of anything that might seem fishy! And again, for all of you who registered your personal name as username, please contact me so I can change it to a more anonymous username. You’d be surprised of how much one can find out about a person from just a username on a forum such ad our! All the best! And be safe! Jim

Reloading Question - Domed Primers?

Sako Collectors Club Discussion Forum

icebear

Sako-addicted
Were domed primers ever used for reloading? And if so, did the priming tools of the time have concave surfaces to avoid marring the surface?

The reason for the question is that I went to use a box of old (green and red box) Remington .222 ammo that I had picked up at a gun show. I fired two rounds out of my wing-safety L46. Both stuck in the chamber. Upon examination, the ammo turned out to have Super-X headstamps. The cartridges had a substantial patina but appeared to be in good condition, with domed primers. Primer seating was uniform and the ammo looked like NOS factory, but I'm guessing reloads since the whole box had the identical wrong headstamp. I'm going to try one more round in a different rifle and if it sticks too, I'll break the rounds down for components.
 
Were domed primers ever used for reloading? And if so, did the priming tools of the time have concave surfaces to avoid marring the surface?

The reason for the question is that I went to use a box of old (green and red box) Remington .222 ammo that I had picked up at a gun show. I fired two rounds out of my wing-safety L46. Both stuck in the chamber. Upon examination, the ammo turned out to have Super-X headstamps. The cartridges had a substantial patina but appeared to be in good condition, with domed primers. Primer seating was uniform and the ammo looked like NOS factory, but I'm guessing reloads since the whole box had the identical wrong headstamp. I'm going to try one more round in a different rifle and if it sticks too, I'll break the rounds down for components.
Icebear..I’ve not heard of domed primers??
But I have the same issue with my wing safety 46.
I was shooting PPU branded ammo, which I had purchased years ago at an auction. It was clean and bright with no patina, flat primers.
I took the gun to a smith and he found a small amount of corrosion in the chamber (rust)… After removing the barrel and polishing the chamber, it cleared up some but still sticks a round once in a while with that ammo. I have a ton of brass for this rifle and hope to tailor a round that will function.
Finding factory .222rem is hard in these parts as .223 has taken over, but I am hoping to find some factory Winchester or Hornady to run thru it.
Strangely enough, the PPU ammo runs fine in my other .222’s .
I’ll be interested to see your results on this one.
 
Yes, domed primers were very common when I first started reloading, but were being phased out fairly rapidly. This was the mid-1960's (yes, I was still in diapers when I began reloading.) If I recall, there were primer seating stems with concave heads available for them. But youthful lack of caution being what it is, my friend and I simply seated them with the flat stems we had available. The crowns would flatten a little bit, but we never had one go off in the press and they performed as intended when fired.

Actually, I think that the domed (or round base) primers we had were some old stock and they were no longer being produced in the 60's, so I can't pinpoint exactly when they were discontinued in favor of flat-faced primers. But who worries about their reloading components having a few years on them? I'm still shooting some original surplus 4831 from the 1940's. It's some of my most consistent powder.
 
Here's a photo of the ammo in its Remington box. I think the 1951 L46 may just have a tight chamber. Or maybe the necks are a bit long, or something. I'm going to try it in my Tikka M55, an extremely robust action. If it works OK I'll shoot up the box in the Tikka; otherwise I'll break it down for components. I'll also swab out the L46 chamber with J-B bore polish, in case there's some crud stuck in it. I think the L46 is fine; it's performed well with different lots of ammo.
SuperX in a Remington Box.JPG
 
Went to the range today to sort out whether the problem was the ammo, the gun, or some mysterious alchemy between the two. First I fired a few rounds of newer Remington ammo through the L46. No problem, and accuracy was good. Then I fired a three-round group with the mystery ammo in a Tikka M55. No problem. Easy ejection, smooth operation as always with a Tikka, and a sub-MOA group. So, that ammo and my 1951 L46 just don't want to play together. That's OK; I'll just shoot up the rest in the Tikka. I'm going to mike the cases - if they are a little long and the L46 has a tight chamber, the very end of the neck could be stuck in the lands. That's a known issue with certain lots of military issue ammo for the 1909 Argentine Mauser - the case neck sticks in the chamber when fired. Fortunately I didn't buy much of that stuff and the rest of my Argentine ammo seems to be OK.
 
Early Sako .222's seem to have had very tight chambers.

A few years back when Starline started making .222 brass they had some complaints come in that their brand new brass was hard to chamber in some Sako .222's, although it was made within SAAMI specs. A representative of the company came on this forum and asked for handloading owners of Sako .222's to volunteer to test some of their .222 brass.

He sent me 20 rounds, which I tried in several Sako .222's ranging from a 1951 L46 to a late 60's L461. I found that in one early L46 it would not chamber, or chamber with difficulty, and in another early L46 the bolt closed stiffly. All of the later Sakos took it smoothly and without complaint, IIRC.

So, your experience with the old Remington ammunition appears to have to do with a tight chamber on your L46.
 
Thanks. I am inclined to agree that the issue here is a tight chamber on my very early L46, especially now that you remind me of the Starline brass test. I was also a tester; I checked several rifles and found the Starline brass fit fine in all of them with no problems. However, I did not own the early wing-safety rifle at the time. I will check to see how the Starline brass fits in that rifle later today (it's in my shop, which is in a separate building).

Upon examining the fired brass, I noticed a bright scratch on the neck of each of the two problem cases, as if a piece of hard grit had been stuck in the chamber just above the junction of neck and shoulder. This scratch is not present on the cases I fired yesterday. Just in case, I'm going to scrub the chamber very thoroughly and then polish it with J-B paste. Here's a photo.
222 Neck Scratch.JPG
 
Thanks. I am inclined to agree that the issue here is a tight chamber on my very early L46, especially now that you remind me of the Starline brass test. I was also a tester; I checked several rifles and found the Starline brass fit fine in all of them with no problems. However, I did not own the early wing-safety rifle at the time. I will check to see how the Starline brass fits in that rifle later today (it's in my shop, which is in a separate building).

Upon examining the fired brass, I noticed a bright scratch on the neck of each of the two problem cases, as if a piece of hard grit had been stuck in the chamber just above the junction of neck and shoulder. This scratch is not present on the cases I fired yesterday. Just in case, I'm going to scrub the chamber very thoroughly and then polish it with J-B paste. Here's a photo.
View attachment 26929


As well as case length, you might want to measure the neck wall thickness & compare it to the newer ammo that chambered fine. I've solved a few chambering "issues" by turning a couple thousandths off neck diameters. Just food for thought. Turtle Wax Chrome Polish works very well as a bore & chamber polish. I use a bore snake with a big blob of it & work it through the bore, adding more polish after every ten passes & an appropriate size bore mop spinning with a drill for the chamber. Don't get carried away! Just clean up any "residue" in the chamber. If you over polish the chamber & get it too "slick" you will increase bolt thrust & powder blow by. The J-B bore paste is a good choice as well & much less aggressive, thus safer. Let us know!
 
Early Sako .222's seem to have had very tight chambers.

A few years back when Starline started making .222 brass they had some complaints come in that their brand new brass was hard to chamber in some Sako .222's, although it was made within SAAMI specs. A representative of the company came on this forum and asked for handloading owners of Sako .222's to volunteer to test some of their .222 brass.

He sent me 20 rounds, which I tried in several Sako .222's ranging from a 1951 L46 to a late 60's L461. I found that in one early L46 it would not chamber, or chamber with difficulty, and in another early L46 the bolt closed stiffly. All of the later Sakos took it smoothly and without complaint, IIRC.

So, your experience with the old Remington ammunition appears to have to do with a tight chamber on your L46.
BINGO!
Sure enough, a Starline test case chambered with difficulty and took a bang on the bolt handle to extract. I played around with the calipers for a while and the only significant difference I found between the Starline case and a new round of Remington ammo was in the upper part of the case body. That's consistent with the feeling I got chambering it, as resistance started when the round was about 2/3 chambered. Case neck didn't seem to be the problem.

Thanks for the help in doping this out.
 
As well as case length, you might want to measure the neck wall thickness & compare it to the newer ammo that chambered fine. I've solved a few chambering "issues" by turning a couple thousandths off neck diameters. Just food for thought. Turtle Wax Chrome Polish works very well as a bore & chamber polish. I use a bore snake with a big blob of it & work it through the bore, adding more polish after every ten passes & an appropriate size bore mop spinning with a drill for the chamber. Don't get carried away! Just clean up any "residue" in the chamber. If you over polish the chamber & get it too "slick" you will increase bolt thrust & powder blow by. The J-B bore paste is a good choice as well & much less aggressive, thus safer. Let us know!
Sounds like good advice. Case neck was OK, as noted in the above post. I'm going to stick with J-B paste for the moment as I have some and I'm familiar with it. Polishing the chamber is just a precaution, as the gun does work fine with other ammo. I don't plan to get very aggressive with the polishing. Thanks for the reply.
 
Perhaps some comparative case headspace measurements would yield useful information.

The pic shows one of my gauge set-ups I've used for many years.

Examining new cases, fired cases, re-sized cases, and formed cases......is a snap, and very repeatable to within 0.0005". Easier than trying to regulate "thumb pressure" on a set of calipers.

Also shown are the "adapters" I've made over the years for specific cartridges........for use with the basic 223 Rem Precision Mic.

Hope this helps.
223-Prec-Mic-Set.jpg
 
Here's a photo of the ammo in its Remington box. I think the 1951 L46 may just have a tight chamber. Or maybe the necks are a bit long, or something. I'm going to try it in my Tikka M55, an extremely robust action. If it works OK I'll shoot up the box in the Tikka; otherwise I'll break it down for components. I'll also swab out the L46 chamber with J-B bore polish, in case there's some crud stuck in it. I think the L46 is fine; it's performed well with different lots of ammo.
View attachment 26835
Hei Ice Bear, thanks for redirecting me to a fresh can of worms, lol Now I am at work, so hopefully I remember to look at my .222 ammo and tools tomorrow. I am gonna be on here tomorrow anyways whenever UPS shows-up with my 3 boxes of SAKO bullets I got at the last auction. At least one of them is 7x33 FMJ
 
Thanks. I am inclined to agree that the issue here is a tight chamber on my very early L46, especially now that you remind me of the Starline brass test. I was also a tester; I checked several rifles and found the Starline brass fit fine in all of them with no problems. However, I did not own the early wing-safety rifle at the time. I will check to see how the Starline brass fits in that rifle later today (it's in my shop, which is in a separate building).

Upon examining the fired brass, I noticed a bright scratch on the neck of each of the two problem cases, as if a piece of hard grit had been stuck in the chamber just above the junction of neck and shoulder. This scratch is not present on the cases I fired yesterday. Just in case, I'm going to scrub the chamber very thoroughly and then polish it with J-B paste. Here's a photo.
View attachment 26929
 
Little off-topic but before ISO or SAAMI, a lot of these companies seemed to get a cartridge for a new caliber and interpret accordingly. I have a Krag-Jorgensen in .308 that was re-barreled in "Boehler Stahl" barrel , in Feb. of 52 by the proof. This work was carried-out in Austria for a Canadian company called Globe firearms or Globco out of Ottawa. I also have one in .243. To make a long story longer, the .308 is an exceptionally accurate gun and shoots MOA with pretty much everything, the cheaper the better. Immediately after test fire I mic'd the case necks and this gun has a .339 neck diameter instead of SAAMI of .343. I have a .308 reamer and my best friend said I should probably make it standard and I said no bleeping way! Never ever mess with a gun that shoots. I handload for it, with Lapua brass, and it has no trouble; but I should really take a hard look at the chamber's neck length.
 
Perhaps some comparative case headspace measurements would yield useful information.

The pic shows one of my gauge set-ups I've used for many years.

Examining new cases, fired cases, re-sized cases, and formed cases......is a snap, and very repeatable to within 0.0005". Easier than trying to regulate "thumb pressure" on a set of calipers.

Also shown are the "adapters" I've made over the years for specific cartridges........for use with the basic 223 Rem Precision Mic.

Hope this helps.
223-Prec-Mic-Set.jpg
 
I have RCBS case Mics for .308,.30-06 and .300 in. Mag and absolutely love them. They were indispensable when I was manufacturing auxiliary cartridges as the shoulder was always a question mark.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top