recessed b/p

[Jon]

Has anyone recessed a b/p with a bushing. Just a thought that may be the ideal set up with the large rifle primer? Any thoughts?

[Deleted]

I have done this for myself, used them with 209's in a 700ml also with no bulging issues.
My 25acp plug is recessed to where there is 1" from the primer to the front of the bushing.

[rangeball]

The plug in my NEF montana .45 is recessed, no issues at all but I've never pushed more than 56gr of H4198 under a 250gr xtp with it.

[Deleted]

My thinking might be wrong but by following along it does not appear LRMP's erode the flash hole as much as 209's. Cowhunter is working on this with a PR Bullet LRMP breech plug in an Encore even if he did not realize it

With that said recessed to use a vent liner for better ignition with LRMP's might work great without fast erosion like 209's have shown with heavy loads?

The bushing plugs that Luke sells are slightly recessed.

[cowhunter]

45omega is right. I keep saying the PR system is great but let's not forget that I have not tested erosion of the flame path (now about .034) or accuracy. I do think the idea of a recessed bushing plug for a rifle primer system is good. Mainly because I believe you don't have the blowback or damaged primer issues you have with the 209 system. I'm the first to admit that these particular beliefs are not proven and are currently being tested.

[Dave W]

I have one but it is for my .50 ML II. I think Deadeye had one made to the same specs as mine and had trouble with bulged primers sabotless with the 327 MH and 209's.
Think Dave D's rule of thumb is, "no longer than a 1.2" flame path for LRP's with a Sav. plug and vent", or ignition issues may occur. IIRC

A fully supported LRP may be less prone to bulging than a partially supported 209, but I still have not seen anyone prove conclusively that a LRP is hotter than a 209.

[moto357]

I recessed one for an h&r 45-70 conversion. Didn't shoot it much but I can say trying h4227 in cold weather shot fine with win primers. I've since sold the gin to another member

[cowhunter]

Dave W: Good observation. You would think there would be a way to measure the "hotness" of these primers. Maybe Earnhardt will have a system to do it soon. You almost need the same breech plug for any worthwhile test.

[Dave W]

Apr 25, 2014 13:06:24 GMT -5 cowhunter said:

Dave W: Good observation. You would think there would be a way to measure the "hotness" of these primers. Maybe Earnhardt will have a system to do it soon. You almost need the same breech plug for any worthwhile test.

I agree. Otherwise it is not an apples to apples comparison. Hankins uses a short and  larger flame path, had Bad Bulls plug dimensions but must have deleted the e-mail, but I think their flame path is close to 1". A short flame path aids with ignition, I don't think there is any doubt about that but if primer bulging or failure is an issue with a partially supported 209, not worth the effort to me.

Like to know if Edge ever did any LRP vs. 209 comparisons with his handi rifle since he has a fully supported 209 or LRP whichever he chooses.
dougva.proboards.com/thread/4648/new-project-iii

Have to say I am impressed with Hankins and Earnhardts ES's with singles and the larger flame path!

[Richard]

If there was enough flame left at the end of a barrel, a video could be made and you would be able to possibly see the difference? I have seen still photo's of various primer "flames" in the past and it is interesting to view the differences. The best way would be to see the flame as it comes out of the breech plug. Anyone got a "bulged" sacrificial barrel they would be willing to cut off?
Richard

[edge]

IMO, there is a difference between volume and intensity.

IMO, volume may be paramount for a long flame channel whereas intensity may work better for a short flame channel.

edge.