16ga.com ~ View topic

Joined: 15 Jun 2010 Posts: 1358 Location: Twin Cities, MN

Got about 100 once fired hulls from someone. It would appear that modern 209 primers do not easily fit into these hulls. If that is the case, does anyone else want them?
Thanks,
Jeff

I believe those old R-P hulls used the 57 Remington primer. The tapered primer body is .222 at the nose and .230 at the base. The Fed 209A primer body is .240 dia at the nose with very little taper. A difference of 18 thou. at the nose. If you got a primer to seat the first time, depriming would take about the same amount of effort.

I just found a full and a partial sleeve of 57 primers hiding in my ammo locker. Along with some AL-5 and AL-7. Remnants of my yoot.

Joined: 15 Jun 2010 Posts: 1358 Location: Twin Cities, MN

That's what I thought. I'm willing to let these hulls go for free as I can not use them.
Jeff

Member Joined: 02 Feb 2006 Posts: 602 Location: western pa

JNW,
Something that I've had success with on old Remington and Peters hulls is to take spent 209's and press them into the primer pocket to expand it, then deprime as usual. Takes some time but it works. Once that issue is resolved then you have to deal with case capacity on the older fiber base wad shells. You can make it work if you have a variety of wads to work with.

Joined: 26 Apr 2010 Posts: 3177 Location: NCWa

On occasion I have swaged the primer pockets of old RP hulls to fit 209 primers, but I've given up the practice, first because I used up most of the old RP hulls, but mainly because I was concerned about cracking the fiber basewad and having it separate, leaving an obstruction in the bore. So I figured the reuse of a few hulls was not worth the risk of damaging the gun and shooter.

Member Joined: 09 Aug 2004 Posts: 401 Location: Tennessee

JNW, PM sent.

57 resize was good enough for Bob Bristor it was good enough for me. Done it for years never had a problem.

.....And in the case of an undetected bore obstruction and a ruined gun and/or face, etc. I suppose Bob Brister and those who follow his lead will step up and pay for the damages. Rolling Eyes

The builders of the Titanic said it was unsinkable. Two + hours put the lie to that claim.

With all the acceptable hulls around, just dump them in to trash and avoid a new lawyer his first case.

As a kid in the "60's, if I didn't have Remington 57's, I'd just cram in a Winchester 209 (or a Federal, CIL, Alcan, CCI or whatever) and load on. For that matter, I have actually shimmed up Rem 57's with paper to hold in a pocket for a 209, but I digress. Anyway, I never had a problem. It's no problem to seat a 209 in an old Remington hull. The 209's are larger by something closer to .010" than the reported .020". And primers are pretty structurally strong, too. Did you ever crush one? You are not likely to hurt a 209 by forcing it into a shotshell sized for a Remington 57. I like Fred Lauer's method -- same idea, but feels safer: Cram in a spent 209 to do the expansion work, take it out, and then put in a live one. And, by the way, check to see if you ever crush or deform this spent 209 by this method. And I do not agree that using a 209 will likely crack and crumble the compressed fiber basewads of the original Remington SP and its predecessors. As much as people purport to distrust these basewads, they seldom fail unless fired many times, and when they fail, they don't produce barrel-blocking chunks, but rather they just spall off sawdust-like stuff -- which can gum up a Model 12, admittedly, but not blow it up. Careful inspection of each hull after swedging in the 209 primer will reveal if you have a problem. Take a look. Use a little flashlight. I think you'll see the re-priming ram of your reloading machine will do more damage than a too large primer, and nobody even thinks about that. In days of old, I used a small screwdriver to scrape at the basewad of the old original Remington SP cases to check the condition. You can always scrape off a few particles, but if I could scrape off a lot of sawdust, I rejected them. Those old original SP's will re-load a surprising number of times. The crimp is the limit. I still have some I've reloaded probably 5 times. Of course, if your hulls have absorbed moisture, or have dried out (too wet or too dry, you just can't win!), the basewads should be checked (stabbed/scraped gently but firmly) with a 1/8 to 3/16 inch wide screwdriver, and if they seem punky, then toss 'em. Believe me, the old original SP's are a much more robust (safer) hull to load than the Winchester/Western paper and plastic hulls that used the patented multi-piece inverted powder seal cup basewad. One could make the case the old SP's in good condition are safer than some of the current Rieffenhauser types, as far as producing loose hull components.

There is an "apparent" logic in the advice you will hear from other quarters, to just throw the hulls away. This is the same type of logic that says that Damascus barreled guns should be fired only with black powder (like it was magic), or better yet, not at all. Rather than on fact, this logic is based on the idea that the fellow of average capacity does not have the ability or self interest to make a decent judgement in the trade-off between freedom and safety. In fact much of the unnecessary legislation and consequent litigation under which we live follows this logic. I'm not so fearful. I think we're better than that.

From SS, "...And I do not agree that using a 209 will likely crack and crumble the compressed fiber basewads of the original Remington SP and its predecessors."

Wrong. I did exactly this back in the mid -1970's when I was first learning to reload shot shells. Being a newbie and not yet knowing the difference between 209 and 57 primers, I forced some CCI 109 primers into the primer pockets of some Remington plastic hulls I'd been given like I usually did in my Federal and Alcan/Canuck hulls. I apparently broke and/or partially dislodged a couple of the pressed fiber basewads. I later discovered a couple of the hulls were missing their base wads when I attempted to reload them again. Thankfully, the gun counter clerk at Vass Kapp Hardware in Galax squared me away before I got myself in real trouble.

No, I did not suffer a bore obstruction and ruin my nearly new Remington 1100. Apparently, the missing fibre base wads went out the muzzle with the rest of the ejecta. I was lucky I was able to replace ignorant newbie luck with some experience on the cheap. It could have been a much more costly lesson.

We are all entitled to learn from our own experiences or those of others. The knowledge can come easy or hard, expensive or cheap. I'll stick with what I've learned. The rest of you can do as you see fit. Good luck and stay safe and healthy.