You might be able to get some information by shooting primer-powered wax bullets into sheets of cardboard to compare depth of penetration.
Can't know if that test has any meaning about the ability to light-up a dense column of smokeless powder though?

 

@unclenick has a good explanation about differences primers and compounds. Alls I know is if they go bang uniformly and reliably they are working. TBH I've never "tested" primers but I do know that if I touch one off in say a revolver 't missus comes down to the gun room to see what happened.

RJ

 

You didn't comment about the facial expression she arrived with?

 

I would not put much thought into how a twice removed primer would compare to a new installed primer.
That Magtech would have left you with a squib if it was in a fully loaded cartridge.
I have read on boards where some reclaim UN-fired primers for whatever reason, If I was desperate I am sure I would, but that is not the case!
Just my opinion.

 

Little dogs are noisy, not sure they are more powerful than other, quieter dogs.

Add "brisance" to your search on primer strength.

 

I tested long ago and found different primers work best with different powders. Load two or three identical cartridges except for primers and shoot 5 shot groups. I found group sizes and velocities will vary.

 

If you do some digging around you might be able to find the excellent articles and pictures on primers that German Salazar put out 20? years ago.

 

Salazar took down his Rifleman's Journal site, but you can still see it using the Wayback Machine. The primers he tested, though, include a number of obsolete versions. One of the problems with primers is that the formulations change over time without notice.

Drone, there are a couple of things here that can cause confusion. Priming compound pellets in the primer cup normally have an ignition compound and fuel compounds. The ratios vary depending on the purpose. One with a larger fuel portion (some magnum primers, in particular) will have lower net brissance (speed and sharpness of the explosion) than others, producing more gas, but at lower temperature and with a smaller, but longer sustained flame. Many primers also incorporate aluminum and bismuth to produce hotter burning sparks, aiding in the ignition of powder at higher deterrent concentrations (particularly in some spherical powders, especially older formulations). This results in a much brighter and larger-looking spark shower as compared to the flame produced by older formulations. "Green" primers that use DDNT as the sensitizer have higher brissance than the traditional lead styphnate primers, so they are louder.

I once ran some comparison of Federal 210M and 215M match primers (lots of white flame spark) with the Russian KVB762 primers (almost invisible flame and no hot sparks) in 30-06 loads for the Garand, with several powders, including WC852 from M2 Ball pulldowns. The Federal primers produce velocity SDs in the low teens, while the Russian primers produce single-digit SDs. So, no, you can't tell much from appearances. You also can't count on the same primer to be best across different chamberings, different powders, nor, especially, different case fill. Cartridges that shoot best and have the lowest SDs with a standard primer when the loading density is high can turn around and have better SDs with magnum versions when the loading density is lower.

So, you just have to try different primers to see what happens. The most significant velocity change I've seen recorded in a Handloading article was for the 223 Remington, using a fixed charge of 24 grains of Reloader 10X under a 55-grain Hornady V-max bullet in a bolt gun. They went from 3150 fps with the mildest primer to 3300 fps with the hottest magnum primer, which QuickLOAD suggests would take just over a 5% increase in powder charge to achieve with the mildest primer, indicating that peak pressure was about 17% higher (note the powder charge increase and the velocity increase are close in value, but that peak pressure goes up much faster than muzzle pressure, so it is disproportionately larger than the average pressure accelerating the bullet, which is why peak pressure is not proportional to an increase in your chronograph reading, but is closer to the cube of the velocity change (almost (3300/3150)³‧⁴ in this case ). I've forgotten the primer details. I'm pretty sure the mild one was a Federal 205 and that the 205M was a little warmer. The hot one may have been a CCI BR4, but don't hold me to that.

Salazar's work with the 30-06 produced much smaller velocity differences, but the bottom line is, you have to test to tell. Low velocity SD is a good indicator of the ignition consistency. I like to test ten rounds with the powder back over the primer and the next ten in the string with the powder forward over the bullet, then look at the resulting SDs.

 

I once ran some comparison of Federal 210M and 215M match primers (lots of white flame spark) with the Russian KVB762 primers (almost invisible flame and no hot sparks) in 30-06 loads for the Garand, with several powders, including WC852 from M2 Ball pulldowns. The Federal primers produce velocity SDs in the low teens, while the Russian primers produce single-digit SDs

Exactly why I bought enough Russian primers in 2010 when they were dirt cheap that I still shoot them today with no intention of slowing down

 

They are hard to seat, but boy, do they perform. Whatever your feelings about the Russians, they do love their target shooting (high schools there have an indoor range and a coach and often an armorer for target shooting training) and produce primers that perform to that standard. I laid in 10K not long before they disappeared, and use them in load development and for accuracy ammo and comparison to other primers.

 

I trick I used for percussion caps is to fill them to the top with black powder or pyrodex, and seal it with shellac dissolved in alcohol. That will give them a lot more kick for igniting large charges. It's pretty much the same reason large naval artillery charge bags have an envelope of black powder attached to one end. You can actually make "field expedient" percussion caps using red paper caps for toy guns that way. I assume you could make primers the same way if you can come up with some kind of anvil.

 

The thought of that makes my nipples hurt. 😬

 

Combustion consistency equals power. A primer's job is to reliably ignite the powder charge, not to be loud. The noise is just a byproduct. A consistent burn that delivers the same ignition every time is far more valuable for accuracy than a louder pop.

 

Combustion consistency equals power.

It can be consistently weak or consistently strong. Consistency generally equals smaller long range groups, regardless of exact power level.

 

Ashsand, not quite sure of the way you're spinning this.
On the strength of observing two different, potentially damaged, primers perform I wondered which was more likely to be the stronger. Nothing more and nothing less.
One emitted a fairly long shower of sparks and the other one didn't, the first was louder.
Given that originally the exercise was to make completely safe two suspect primers by discharging them, the subsequent post was really "I wonder if......etc. etc"
After reading the responses I formed the opinion that gbro in post #5 summarised it fairly.

 

Reliability and consistency beat out louder and stronger.

 

Algore invented the e-tronics primer thing for Remington back in the day (pure genius).
Could measure the energy in that system kinda easy with common tools.
Caps are tougher!

 

Why?

 

Is a good question.
I suspect is because we have tools to measure more accurately?

 

The only inconsistencies I've seen are in my magnum rifle cartridges when it comes to accuracy. As other have stated, a more efficient/consistent burn is required to repeat the same burn rate. The powder column is constantly changing and that's when quality primers shine.