New Percuss. Cap. Available

[Fox Creek Kid]

http://www.sellier-bellot.cz/ammo-components-primers.php

Anyone tried these? 

[Mako]

Kid,
I've not seen them advertised anywhere.  If you find a source let us know, I'll be happy to test and report on them.

They have two sizes listed, I'm a bit confused about these compared to the primer listing; the primers are listed by diameter:
4,4 (4.4mm) = .173"  Which is close to the American nominal diameter of Ø.175 for small primers
5,3 (5.3mm) = .209"  Which is close to the American nominal diameter of Ø.211 for small primers

Most of us know that European primers (including shotgun primers) tend to run small.


The (4,0 and 4,4) could make sense for percussion caps if they are talking about height.  If they are making a common internal diameter and then varying the skirt length 'a la Remington then it does make sense.

4,0 (4.0mm) = .157"
4,4 (4.4mm) = .173"

Remember the Remington dimensions I have posted a couple of times?

CAP	I.D.	Height
Rem 10	0.166"	0.183"
Rem 11	0.166"	0.154"

~Mako

[Noz]

If anyone can find these try them and let us know. I'm always ready to try something new.

Here in "flyover" country new things come later.

[Paladin UK]

Fer FCK........

I have used and still have S&B Lge `n Sml  Pistol Primers, they are softer(Casings) than CCI but not as soft as Federal, I have used them for about 6yrs and use them when I cant get Remmie.

FWIW....... I have had NO Missfires at all!! I must by now have used  6-8000 lge `n 3-4000 sml  and if I could only get threse I would not mind at all
Paladin (What hopes he`s helped) UK

[Montana Slim]

Thought I'd share data from my percussion cap spreadsheet:

Manufacturer  Size   ID   OD   Length   Material
Remington         10   0.162   0.182   0.175   Copper
Remington         11   0.170   0.186   0.163   Copper
RWS        1075   0.159   0.177   0.157   Copper
CCI         10   0.158   0.173   0.162   Copper
CCI         11   0.164   0.177   0.165   Copper
Dixie (Italy)         11   0.160   0.181   0.151   Brass

Notes:
Generally, caps are tapered. My ID measurements are closer to the small diameter.
My Remington #11s are probably 30ish  years old. Price on the tins are $1.99...but, as you can see they are larger than Rem #10s, but actually shorter than the #10s. I don't see any Rem #11s on the shelves anymore, or I'd try a new tin, just to see if they really are different today. It makes no sense to me that the current production #11 is the same ID as a #10. If I measured such, I'd have to drop a dime on my friends at Remington...or maybe just chat them up at next months conference.

Slim

[Mako]

Thought I'd share data from my percussion cap spreadsheet:

Manufacturer  Size   ID   OD   Length   Material
Remington         10   0.162   0.182   0.175   Copper
Remington         11   0.170   0.186   0.163   Copper
RWS        1075   0.159   0.177   0.157   Copper
CCI         10   0.158   0.173   0.162   Copper
CCI         11   0.164   0.177   0.165   Copper
Dixie (Italy)         11   0.160   0.181   0.151   Brass

Notes:
Generally, caps are tapered. My ID measurements are closer to the small diameter.
My Remington #11s are probably 30ish  years old. Price on the tins are $1.99...but, as you can see they are larger than Rem #10s, but actually shorter than the #10s. I don't see any Rem #11s on the shelves anymore, or I'd try a new tin, just to see if they really are different today. It makes no sense to me that the current production #11 is the same ID as a #10. If I measured such, I'd have to drop a dime on my friends at Remington...or maybe just chat them up at next months conference.

Slim

Slim,
All I can say is be very careful what you publish about the sizes of percussion caps.  You did admit that your Remington #11s are probably thirty years old, but people will pick up on what you say and repeat it as gospel.  I am amazed at how many times things get repeated on different forums.  I have even had people post some of my graphics as their "proof," which is funny when I post the full image, or the additional ones that put it in context.

Remington changed their geometry a while back, I'm afraid to say exactly when, but it was probably over 5 years ago.  If you still have contacts at Remington please ask them the exact date and let us know what it is for our reference.  The #10 and #11 Remington caps now share the same internal diameter, the difference is in the skirt length.  This change is even noted on their packaging as "improved cap geometry":

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cap%20N%20Ball%20Questions/2a-1.jpg

ricck brought up the same point about the old Remington dimensions in December of last year.  I pointed the same labeling out to him and provided this amended table.

CAP	I.D.	Height	Cap face above cone
Rem 10	0.166"	0.183"	0.038"
Rem 11	0.166"	0.154"	0.037"
CCI 10	0.161"	0.163"	0.051"
CCI 11	0.166"	0.165"	0.053"
RWS 1075	0.165"	0.160"	0.046"

I say amended because my original measurements were a few years old and Aggie Desperado supplied some new measurements which prompted me to re-measure all of the caps on the chart with fresh caps.  These dimensions have been checked by others on different forums and we are pretty much in agreement within the margin or error for measurement.  All measurements were taken with gage pins and an optical comparator for the height and diameter (to avoid pinching).  If you refer to the pictures below you can see it would be difficult to get a good height measurement with a caliper or micrometer.

To further illustrate the differences between Remington #10 and #11 caps I offer the following pictures.

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/Rem10d-1.jpg  http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/Rem11a-1.jpg


I'm going to throw up images of CCI and the RWS caps as well to address the misconception about "cap taper."


http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CCI10c-1.jpg  http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CCI11c-1.jpg



http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/RWS1075-1.jpg

As you can see there is little or no taper on any of the caps.  This is not only externally, but internally.  In fact some of the caps are actually smaller at the base, this may be due to handling, etc. but the fact remains there isn't any discernible taper beyond a .001".

I measured these caps internally using gage pins.  The pin for the recorded dimension would go in until it bottomed out on the priming compound.  In all cases this was just before the bursting disk face at the area where it adjoined the walls.  I checked the next size up with the pins and found that there was more variation due to out of round conditions rather than any internal taper.  

The dead soft copper they use for the cap material has very little or no spring back.  I know that Omark used rolled and then annealed material for their caps, of course it gets some work hardening, but copper relieves itself so well I wouldn't expect any appreciable spring back. I have extensive experience with forming thin gage copper for Flex Circuits and exo-skeletons for semiconductor devices.  I have formed 1/4, 1/2, full hard and annealed copper both nickel plated and un-plated with an organic barrier to prevent oxidation before soldering.  I used to be able to predict the spring back very accurately without any calculations for the 1/2  hard and full  hard materials we primarily used due to availability. It became a game with each new design to see if the boss could predict the formed angles.  I won a lot until they kept shrinking the allowable tolerance on me.

During a tour of an Omark facility in my days in a different industry I stopped at the cap line and asked a lot of questions just for my personal interest.  They were very accommodating and I even have (or had) some samples of the caps in process to show the forming steps.  I may have lost them during a move because I looked for them last year and still haven't found them.  I'm hoping they are squirreled away with some other "trophies" I can't find.  

I never traveled to any of the Remington facilities (except for their MIM house) but I still have a direct contact at Olin (one of my old Chemical Engineers) and there might still be some at Omark who I have dealt with.  But I'm very familiar with the drawing processes they would use and I know that the guys at Omark told me there was no draft on the forming mandrels.  I was assuming there was and they explained the "spring back" they got was pretty much entirely diametrical and they didn't need draft as it was enough to release the cup.  I know it was diametrical because as we spoke I kept saying internal taper and I was corrected, I tend to remember being corrected...

Now to your statement that it makes no sense that the I.D.s of Remington #10 and #11s are the same.  It does make sense, and it is simple geometry.  I don't remember if I posted these images on this forum or not, but this explains your conundrum...

This is a standard Uberti Cone, I used it because the person I was responding to refused to accept the Treso cone as the basis, he claimed the Treso wasn't a "factory" cone and therefore didn't apply, so I simply accommodated him.



This shows how this particular cone accepts a Remington #11 cap with a slight interference at the base of the skirt, but the #10 would not fully seat because it runs into the tapered walls of the cone.  One Internal Diameter, two different fits because of skirt length.

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cap%20N%20Ball%20Questions/RemingtonCapComparison-1.jpg

Just for grins we will use the same cone and show how CCI caps fit.

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cap%20N%20Ball%20Questions/CCICapComparison-1.jpg

Two different methods of fit, Remington uses skirt length, CCI uses internal diameter.

I prefer Remington caps for a couple of reasons, one of them being you can usually use both #10 and #11s on a Treso cone.  The cones were designed for #11 caps per their literature, but because of the nature of the skirts on the longer Remington #10 cap and the stress (forming cracks) at the juncture of the petals the  skirt will relieve itself at the petal crotches and allow you to force it on.

These are the cracks I am speaking of:

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/Rem11c-1.jpg  http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/Rem10b-1.jpg

So I try to get Rem #11s, but I can use #10s and use more force to seat them.  The 11s are plenty tight, I would prefer not to "force" a cap on.  With CCIs it takes too much force trying to seat a #10 on an unaltered Treso cone and I won't do it with a loaded cylinder.

Regards,
Mako

[Pettifogger]

I love your drawings.  When I am using crayolas and a ruler they just don't look near as good.   

[Fox Creek Kid]

I agree with Mako on the Rem. #10 caps. Always had to squeeze the #11 caps to keep them on the cones.

FWIW, I have NEVER had a gun or cone that the RWS 1075 caps fit well. I bought a tin (actually plastic) years ago and ended up using them as cone "cleaners."  

[Montana Slim]

...Could be why I don't set my guns up to use Remington caps 

Common sense dictates that a size 11 cap should be larger ID than a #10, regardless of its length....its always been that way...maybe I'll post  common "standard" cap sizes from some commercially printed "industry" tables. I have some limited documentation at my office on such things.

I'm using the vintage Remingtons on my Colt Dragoon. Will set that revolver up to use CCI #10s after they're gone.

I believe today's trends in muzzleloading are based on in-line rifles and substitute propellants...from my perspective...not a good thing.

Why would  I need to be very careful about posting sizes of percussion caps?...suppose I'm on report to the P.C. Industry now 

Slim

[Mako]

...Could be why I don't set my guns up to use Remington caps 

Common sense dictates that a size 11 cap should be larger ID than a #10, regardless of its length....its always been that way...
Slim

"Common sense" dictates that it is simple geometry that determines the fit of a cylindrical bore over a tapered post.  It has nothing to do with tradition. 

And it hasn't "always been that way," it's just different than what you believed it was.  I've had discussions with collectors that indicate that caps dimensions have varied quite a bit over the years.  One even indicated that Remington wasn't the first to use skirt length to adjust the fit.

The evidence that the skirt length not being unique to Remington is even reinforced by  the dimensions on the site the Kid directed us to in the original post.  The only way those dimension of 4.0mm and 4.4mm make any sense is if it is length based.

maybe I'll post  common "standard" cap sizes from some commercially printed "industry" tables. I have some limited documentation at my office on such things.

There isn't any such industry standard, or several of us would already know about it.  If you have one you will be the hero of all percussion shooters everywhere.

I'm using the vintage Remingtons on my Colt Dragoon. Will set that revolver up to use CCI #10s after they're gone.

Your choice, just be aware that the CCI caps have a much thicker priming compound than the current Remington caps and twice as thick as the older '70s and 80's vintage caps.  You may not be doing yourself any favors by choosing to be hard headed because Remington's choice of geometry insults your sensibilities.

I think the majority of serious shooters here would vote Remington caps as their cap of choice.    Furthermore I think you will find the majority of shooters who are extremely serious about their cap guns in competition would indicate they use Treso cones paired with Remington caps.

I believe today's trends in muzzleloading are based on in-line rifles and substitute propellants...from my perspective...not a good thing.

From a modern propellant stand point I would agree with you, but from a cap usage point I believe the usage by inline shooters will be below what a revolver shooter would use in an outing.  The cap gun still is a driver in the cap department.

Why would  I need to be very careful about posting sizes of percussion caps?...suppose I'm on report to the P.C. Industry now 

It has nothing to do with being P.C. Slim,  It has everything to do with posting factual information.  As I said, at least you qualified it with stating at least the Remington info was not current.  Based on your table I'd question some of the other dimensions as well.  When did you gather that data, how many caps were in your samples and what instruments did you use?

This isn't an inquisition, but as you can tell I worked long and hard to gather factual data and support it with photo documentation and graphic analysis/illustration.  So forgive me when I am a bit hesitant to just say, "well,  we can all get along, besides it's all opinion anyway."  It's not opinion on my part, and I back it up with evidence.  So once again forgive me if I seem a bit strident...

Have a nice evening,
Mako

[Montana Slim]

P.C. = Percussion Cap in this instance....

yes, I make jokes sometimes...continually in the case of so-called fireams/Ammunition industry "standards". I know folks who used to sit on SAAMI. Military standards are the only standards enforced. Winchester had to go to the Army a few years ago for approval to modify a commercial cartridge case dimension (one occassionally used in CAS)...ONLY because it was used in a somewhat obscure mil application. Anything truly "commercial" doesn't get any attention, because only some industry partners are "in" on the change. Privately, I monitor several dimensions of caps, primers and cartridge brass for cowboy items, but only as response to a problem or issue I see with my own components and those occasionally brought up on this board.

The data I've posted so far, while only obtained using a well-calibrated (Army TMDE shop) dial caliper is certainly accurate to within the nearest .001. I have(had) many thousands of caps to draw samples from. within a lot, they are extremely consistent. I've seen the addition of ribs, scallops, etc taking them away, bringing them back, foil lining, extra waterproofing, etc. thes list goes on.

The gist of all my comments are that cap dimensions have varied over the years, and continue to do so.

Of course the reason most modern CAS C&B shooters are using Remington caps are simply that Treso cones seem to be designed around them...and many CASers go the easy route of switching to Treso. So far, I haven't found significant problesm is consistency & quality of Uberti...but Pietta's have a spotty track record.

Of course this is all just my opinion...I'm sure others will disagree....but then that is there right.