Fast varmint loads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am amazed at the bad data being passed as if it were fact. A 9 twist is thought by many to be the best all around twist in the 223. It isn't an accident that rifle makers offer that twist in so many rifles. You can't push a Nosler 40 gr BT fast enough to cause a modern bullet to tear apart in a 223 with that twist. Maybe in a barrel with a very rough bore...maybe. I'm pretty darn sure that's true of an 8 twist also. As for accuracy of small bullets, it's going to depend on your specific rifle. Like I said earlier, my last two 223's in 9 twist shot 40 grainers great. It just is wrong to generalize and say that a fellow can't get good accuracy with a 40 gr bullet in an 8 or 9 twist barrel.
 
Wendy, 1:9" twist & 1:8 twist barrels is what I have been shooting 'Heavy' bullets out of for years, I usually start at 60 or 65 grains and up with something that fast of twist.
1:8"/1:9" twist really comes into its own around 65-70 grain bullets.

Same experience with Varget & Benchmark,
Load stable, compressed or not, tempraute stable cause varmint shooters don't get to pick the weather like fussy range shooters get to...

1:8-1:9 shoots 'OK' with 55 grain bullets, but I drop twist when I get into 45-40-35 grain rounds,
My pinpoint P'rat exterminators are as slow as 1:14" and there is a 1:16" twist in the rack.
I'm NOT so arrogant as to completely exclude nearly 100 years of development data, ALL the early 'Super' .22s using really light bullets are what gave the 'Super' .22s there 'Inherent Accuracy' label in the first place...

From the 60s up the bullets got heavier, and faster, and the faster twist rates were to stablize those heavier/faster bullets...
Light weight bullet shooters have an entirely different set of variables to deal with, I let them deal with them without judgment, you do what you have to do no matter what the latest gun magazine has printed.

I'm NOT going to spend the time or money making 'Bench' rounds to shoot cats, rats, dogs or even pig size animals (instead of paper on fair weather days).
When the bulk bullets, common dies & powder thrower, common powders shoot 10 round groups under a dime, and do it in all weather, I'm good with that!

Actual hunting rifles don't need an optic with 54 adjustments,
You don't have time to mess with 54 adjustments when the coyotes don't present themselves but a few seconds,
You don't need 20X magnification to see some bench shooter make a hole in paper a little darker and fuzzier...
You need an optic that doesn't knock loose while bouncing around in a Jeep and has low enough magnification you can lead a trotting coyote, something that doesn't fog up when you pull it out of the Jeep in cold weather...

If I have to pull down rounds because the over all length isn't 'Perfect' or the round isn't 'Perfectly Concentric' offends me... This is target/hunting ammo!
If I can't crank it out with common bulk bullets, common powder, common dies, and have it shoot well, then it's time to rethink my objectives or the rifle I'm shooting it through.
Inherent Accuracy isn't a fluke or mistake, with nearly 100 years of testing/trial & error I'm thinking it's pretty intentional...
And I find it's not all that difficult when you simply stick to what's been laid down.

You have to be pretty arrogant, or have a LOT of free time to develop loads that work against all that experience to make ONE RIFLE shoot something it doesn't inherently 'Like', going against all that experience.

I've been shooting for exactly 50 years as of January,
Ive done about anything you can to a rifle/ammo,
I've come back around to the conclusion that I wasted a BUNCH of time & money on combinations that were INHERENTLY INACCURATE...
I *Could* usually beat something together that would shoot,
But now I'm older, a little smarter, and a lot less prone to waste time...

What works for the 1,000 yard range queens & paper punchers doesn't nessarally work for the guy banging the occasional pasture digger or chicken killer...
If it won't work at -20*F to 120*F, yanked out of a tool box or seat scabbard, it stays in the rack to show off once in a while, on a fair weather day on the range.

Don't get me wrong, I still like to LOOK at $5,000 bench rifles,
But I won't own another one...
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the backup Jeep. Everyone's an "expert" online. One note I was going to drop was about testing with factory seconds or bullets with high runout. Shoot some 55gr bt in a 9 twist barrel and you can see a sweeping pattern and horrible groups. Shoot the same bullets in a 12 twist and they're tack drivers. Fast twist for bullet weight will heavily pronounce the high bullet runout. I work in an industry where everyone handloads and if I have a question I can ask some of the walking ballistic encyclopedias, true experts that shoot for a living.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
A little history/education never hurts anything, but if it doesn't particularly fit into someone's 'Opinion' they go off the deep end...

Facts is facts, no such thing as 'Alternative Facts' (opinion/lies).

Of it's off center and you spin it slower/harder, you *Might* reduce the wobble effects...
Most times staying well under 200,000 is 'Optimum' with light .22

It's like the 100,000 word tirade a while back about .30 cal/7.62mm rounds (on a different forum),
The simple FACT about .30 cal. is,
Machinests make dies that make bullets.

Before the days of canculators & computers, or even high accuracy micrometers, it was much easier to look at a machinest ruler to make dies.

.30 cal is a 'Three Line' measurement, 3/10 of an inch.
VERY easy to make dies/molds at 3/10" and very easy to figure how much base material is going to be used to make 100,000 bullets.
Nothing more.

There was also pretty good ground work laid for the .30 bore in relationship to velocity & rifling twist rate since .30 cal had been pretty much 'Standard' since the invention of the rifled barrel, starting with the 'Kentucky Long Rifle'.
Americans didn't 'Invent' rifling, but they darn sure perfected it!

Lots of experimentation already done...
And remember, lead was EXPENSIVE in the beginning, the 'Colonies' produced raw materials, they didn't have refinery facilities, so large bore lead consuming firearms weren't popular.
A small, less expensive bullet that was hyper accurate for the day was preferred.

What most people don't know is the .224 diameter bullet was devised because of manufacturing processes, much like the .30 caliber round ball in its day.
Again, machinists/precision metal workers ruled the day...

Lead wire came in .250" (1/4") diameter from the manufacturers,
And industrial machining was set up to make volume stampings from wire.
The industrial revolution was about either stamping what used to be cast or hand forges, or weaving that used to be done by hand...

Much more time consuming to cast bullets than stamp out short cuts of wire into bullets...
The castings are less accurate, non-compressed, thermal expansion distorted molds, while die drawing produced a no-heat process with a slick finish and a precise size.

Combine that FACT with the swaging process required with cast bullets and casting was even slower...

Order .250" wire,
Compress size down slightly through a drawing die to remove surface imperfections (now .224"),
Cut into sections and stamp out compressed lead bullets on a scale, and with a speed never before possible.

When Nitro based powders became available, velocities increased to the point a jacket was required, you simply draw size the wire smaller to produce a bullet core, a smaller die was all that was required for the lead wire, before it got dropped into a smaller stamping die to produce that lead core...

People still smelt lead & cast bullets at home because they don't have the huge presses required to produce in the volume the ammo makers do.
Anyone can afford/operate a lead pot, mold & sizer die in a home press for a few hundred, but no one at home produces a million a day...

Everyone forgets that just 50 or 75 years ago, powders were erratic, non-jacketed bullets ruled the day, and semi-auto anything was considered a waste of ammo & 'Inherently Inaccurate'...

The grand-dad of all the 'Super' .22 rounds is the .218 Bee.
Compressed lead bullets, no jackets, 1:16" or 1:14" twist rifling, as low as 25 grain bullets on top of 'Questionable' powder...
Still inherently accurate which is why 'Super' .22 bores are around today in the forms we commonly use...
If it weren't 'Inherently Accurate' and killed varmints just as dead as we kill them today, it wouldn't have been so popular spawning a dozen 'Same As' calibers...

It's been 'Tweeked' every direction you can think of,
From huge case with .22 bullet, to grossly heavy bullets compaired to the standard 35 grain initial offering, to things that were too stupid to mention.

From 1:5" rifling twist to 1:20" rifling twist... and that's just what I know about & saw with my own eyes...

The 'Super' .22 comes in every action Imaginable, from single shot break down to full auto belt fed... and all of them 'Shoot' (I didn't say they fit any particular application or were accurate).

I don't care WHAT you shoot,
I don't care HOW you shoot,
I don't care what you go through or did to make any *Particular* variant shoot 'Accurately'...

There are some basic guidelines/rules that make these little 'Super' .22 firearms 'Inherently Accurate' without worrying *IF* the bullets, Powder, dies commonly available will do the job you are setting out to do...

I'm NOT building ammo for a very specifically built rifle that is intended to save lives with every cold bore shot (military snipers for instance),
I'm NOT going to pay $3 each for cases,
I'm not going to weigh and volume check each case before loading,
I'm NOT going to reject 80% of bullets because they are 1/10 grain over/under specified weight,
I'm NOT going to weigh each charge of powder to perfect specification.
I'm NOT going to build each round for a specific length for ONE specific chamber and reject anything that is 0.001" off,
I'm NOT going to check each round for perfectly concentric...

What I am going to do is load bulk components from a reputable manufacturer and crank out rounds on a self indexing progressive machine and call it a day because from long experience I've found the ground hog, coyote, P'dog can't tell the difference if one round has 1/10 grain more powder or one bullet is 1/10 grain heavier or lighter when it blows through its vitals...

Since the rifling matches the bullet weight, such minor issues are minimized and the round is STILL on target.
Nothing 'Subjective' about it, all OBJECTIVE, and the OBJECTIVE is to take out hole diggers & chicken killers!
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the backup Jeep. Everyone's an "expert" online
Click to expand...

Yeah, including the guy who posted this.....

I have to mention that 40 gn bullets usually don't shoot at all, let alone group well in a barrel with a 9 or 8 twist
Click to expand...

That right there is internet misinformation at its best.

To the OP....depending on the twist of your AR you should have no problems with 40 grain bullets and faster burning powders. An 8 twist or slower should work fine. Find the right load and you'll get your speed and accuracy.
 
So you're saying the folks that do this stuff everyday professionally in a ballistic lab are sending out false info.... that's an interesting idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So are we to believe that you are a Nosler bullet tech guy? I have my doubts.

Let me say that a 9 twist in a 223 isn't the optimum twist for a 40 gr bullet. We all know that. However, for you to say that it won't even shoot in that twist and will fly apart if you do shoot it is not what a knowledgeable and experienced shooter would say. The old Sierra Blitz might fly apart on you, but the Blitzking won't. As for accuracy of tiny bullets in fast twist barrels, I suggest you read Venturino's article in Varmint magazine on that specific subject, with test results with an 8 twist AR and a 9 twist Savage. That article was what caused me to try the 40 gr Nosler BT in the 223 I had at that time. And, since I had read that H335 was great with tiny bullets, I bought some of that. The combination of those, at near max loads, was great accuracy. Further, the accuracy was equal to what I could do with 55 gr Noslers, though maybe a touch less accurate than the 65 gr Sierra GKs.

I suspect that you, Nosler Guy, are just regurgitating something you read instead of something you actually did. And if you have a 9 twist 223 and you can't make it shoot with 40 gr Vmax or Ballistic Tips, the fault lies with you, not the barrel and bullet.

There are just too many people like me that successfully and accurately shoot tiny bullets in 9 twist rifles for it to be impossible or inadvisable.

And, for the record, that little 40 gr Nosler BT will knock a coyote flat. It hasn't worked that well for me on hogs however, when I encountered a hog and only had that bullet.
 
The point here was what you *CAN* do opposed to inherent accuracy.

You *CAN* mess around endlessly searching for a fairly accurate load to work with a specific barrel twist rate you already have,
OR,
You can simply run with a bullet that is inherently accurate in your specific twist rate barrel.

It's been worked to death by everyone,
And the simple fact that as bullet weights increased, twist rates increased.
No big mystery here...

You *Can* shoot light bullets out of a fast barrel, just not 'Inherently Accurate'.
Same way heavy bullets out of a slow barrel aren't inherently accurate.

While *Some* spend a ton of time trying to ignore the basic guidelines and do exactly opposite,
I grab what ever bullet is close, load it and have inherent accuracy without a bunch of screwing around...

I want to see that guy with 1:8" twist shoot some of the plain lead 35 grain bullets laying around here (for 'Vintage' loads),
That should be a hair pulling, cussing bench beating good time!
 
Jeep hammer, if you'll scroll back to the start of this chat, you'll find that Max713 simply wants to shoot a 40 gr bullet fast. Not at all a complicated problem, except that NG brought up that the whole idea of shooting such a bullet in a 9 twist is practically impossible and that the bullet will disintegrate in flight. Well, obviously that's wildly incorrect.

And now here you go on "inherent accuracy" and how the tiny bullets aren't inherently accurate in a fast twist. Well, I suppose we could argue about what exactly inherent accuracy means in this context, but instead I'll just ask what level of accuracy would you consider acceptable with a 40 gr bullet in a 9 twist? My shooting, on my 100 yard range, will usually result in 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch groups, and sometimes I can do a little better than 1/2 inch. That's good enough for me, and not one bullet yet has disintegrated in flight (Nosler, Sierras, and Vmax).

Yes, a slower twist should yield better accuracy with tiny bullets, so if that's your point, I agree. Just don't tell me that what I'm doing, and have been doing for years, won't work or work well.

If I had an AR with a 7.5 or faster twist, I wouldn't waste time trying to shoot the little bullets, though I might be tempted to at least try.
 
This guy just doesn't give up on having the last word.
I made it pretty clear that my information comes from experience and the experts in the shooting lab. The fact that 40 bts can come apart in an 8 or faster barrel is based on the fact that they have in the lab and in the field. I simply tried to share the fact that shooting those bullets in a fast twist barrel is less than optimal and (not shoot at all) on our side of the shooting industry means minute of barn door.
I work in conjunction with the experts and I'm only here to share that knowledge, do with it what you please but don't try to discredit something before you learn the facts. good day and good luck in your endeavors sir.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
It's not all about the last word, it's about good information, which you aren't providing. I don't have an 8 twist barrel, but have had a couple of 9's. And I, like the OP, shoot the 40 gr bullets vey well, as do many people on this forum. That is inconsistent with what you keep insisting. It must be a miracle...or...you are wrong.
 
In the spirit of comradeship, Nosler Guy did say that the 40's "can come apart in an 8 OR FASTER twist. The 'or faster' makes that statement believable. And he said that a 9 twist is less than optimal with that 40 gr bullet, which is correct. Those points are not contrary to the points I was making. I will, however have to insist that a fellow can shoot a 40 gr bullet in a 9 twist with great accuracy. There are just too many of us doing it for it to be impossible, inadvisable, or minute of barn door inaccurate. As for shooting that bullet in an 8 twist, I have no personal experience with that, only access to the writings of respected shooters that do it successfully.

Now...per the Nosler 7th loading book, it suggests that Benchmark might be a good powder for max velocity, if the OP is still following this chat.
 
That's a good question.
Originally I read a lot of good information here at the firing line, but noticed there were more than a few questions specific to nosler or my experience and I wanted to share my knowledge. So I joined here and it's currently the only forum I've wanted to join. The nosler forum is big on the safari types and that doesn't quite line up with my personal endeavors.
Once again I try to back what I say up with accounts from the experts I enjoy working with. I value people's opinions but there's a lot of folks out there that are very passionate about their opinions based on their limited experience. I make bullets, and the machines that make the bullets for a living. I live and breathe ballistics everyday. I may not be an expert but I am very passionate about what I do and if I can help other folks here I consider it a win for the shooting community.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
Nosler Guy, if this discussion is a good example of your 'sharing your knowledge', you can stop while you're behind. I haven't heard anything from you that has been remotely useful so far. That said, if you do work at Nosler, perhaps in the future you'll have useful data.
 
and, perhaps, in the future, we'll have a discussion that doesn't turn into a spat-fest. Till then, however, this one is done.

CLOSED.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top