Powder question

B

barryc123

Inactive
New guy here, my name is Barry. I’ve been reloading handgun cartridges for five years and haven’t blown up any firearms yet. My son recently gave me an AR for Christmas so I bought the stuff for my blue press to load .223. The Lyman book says 25-28 grains of Varget. I put 25 grains in a case and the powder came up to the bottom of the neck. It made me think I am getting close to a compressed ? load. Is that too much powder? I don’t think 28 grains would even fit. I’m using 55gr fmj Bullets with cannelures from Everglades. This being my first attempt to load a bottleneck cartridge I thought I better ask for help from people who know what they are doing.
Thanks
 
Doesn't sound like too much to me, and that's what the data says is within acceptable loads.

I use 24 grains 335 and it comes up about that far.

I think you're fine, but then again, I'm not a doctor.
 
My standard 223 plinking load for semi auto rifles is 25 gr of varget under a 55gr Hornady fmjbt. Its a decent starting load for most rifles, and the case is nearly filled up to the shoulder. no worries, its OK.
 
Based on Hodgdon's data this will be a compressed load. I don't personally prefer compressed loads, just noy my cup to tea.

As I understand it varget it great in 223 for heavier bullets, and longer barrels. My 223 varget loads were well below my target velocities. so far benchmark and CFE223 have gotten the job done for me. although I wont be getting CFE223 again unless I cant find benchmark as it is not very temperature stable.
 
25.0 is a safe load, compressed loads are pretty common in the smallish .223 case. My 77/80 gn load for a bolt rifle is 24.5 Varget
 
Varget is my go-to for 69 gr bullets. I use 25 gr.
For 75-77 gr bullet,I like RE -15.

Actually,I have not loaded any 55 gr for years.H-335 is not a bad choice.

I might try Benchmark with a 55 gr. It works good with 60 gr Varmint Ballistic Tips.

Here is what IMO you are running into. Varget is a bit slow for 55 gr bullets.

You run out of case capacity rather than achieving excess pressure with 55 g bullets.
If you have a 1 in 9 or tighter twist,I suggest trying 69 gr Matchkings or Nosler Custom Comps with your Varget. Nice Combination.
 
rifle powder is MUCH slower than most typical handgun powders. If you think about how H110 will almost fill a case compared with unique, the rifle powders can sometimes come up to the top and you can only get some book charges in with tapping and light compression. I like ball powders for 223.
 
Some loads will be compressed depending on your selection, powder and manual used, and if you are following the data from the manual they should be safe.
 
I’m using 27.1 gr of Varget with 55gr flat base soft point bullets in LC brass. It is pretty full so I take my electric toothbrush and use it as a vibrator, I just set it against the side of the case and after about fifteen seconds it settles the powder a fair amount so it’s not as compressed. I’ve shot a couple thousand of these with no issues. They are loaded lengthwise to easily fit and function in an AR15 mag.
 
Another option would be to switch to a faster burning powder.
I've been using Win 748, and Alliant Varmint for the 52gr SMK.
Ramshot TAC would be a good one also.

I use a slower burning powder like Varget, RL15, PP2000MR for the heavier 68-70gr bullets.
 
Echoing what others have said, Varget is decent for the heavier loads, but for 55s, I'd do with something a little faster.

And yes, compressed loads not uncommon with the small cases.
 
CAUTION: The following post (or a page linked to) includes or discusses loading data not covered by currently published sources of tested data for this cartridge (QuickLOAD or Gordon's Reloading Tool data is not professionally tested). USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.

Caution!
Lyman publishes reloading data from a variety of sources and much of it is pretty old. They never actually tested powders and bullets. The data you quote might have been gathered from a source that used an older type of the powder in question OR it might have been based upon .556x45 instead of .223 Remington.

You didn't say which caliber you actually have or what twist your barrel is. I have ARs that are listed as either .223 Rem or 5.56x45 caliber. Both shoot the same .224 bullets. The .223 Rem brass has a slightly shorter neck and a lower Pmax pressure spec.

Max loads are also very dependent upon bullet weight and to a lesser degree to bullet shape.

I ran some QuickLOAD runs on Varget with a 55 gr and 69 grain bullet weights.
A 1:12 twist barrel usually shoots up to 55 grain bullets well.
A 1:9 twist barrel will stabilize 69 grain bullets.
I used the two weights to demonstrate how much the bullet weight effects the chamber pressure and therefore the max load.

First, the Pmax for a .223 Rem SAAMI is 55,000 psi.
With a 55 grain bullet, a load of 26.4 grains of Varget is just under Pmax.
For a 69 grain bullet, a load of 24.2 is just under Pmax.
(The Sierra Manual does not list Varget as one of the powders tested with the .223 Remington.)

The Pmax for a 5.56x45 is 62,366 psi.
With a 55 grain bullet, a load of 27.3 grains of Varget is just under Pmax.
(The Sierra manual (they actually test) lists a range of 25.1 to 27.2 grs.)
For a 69 grain bullet, a load of 25.1 is just under Pmax according to QuickLoad.
(The Sierra manual lists a range of 23.3 to 26.1 grs.)

Be very careful with using responses about loads when you haven't specified the bullet weight or the actual rifle caliber.
Many people presume that .223 means 5.56x45 and provide data they use for their 5.56x45s, but the max pressure conditions for each are quite different.
If you have a Wylde chamber you should be OK using the 5.56x45 loads since the chamber was built to shoot both the .223 and 5.56x45.
BUT always start with a light charge and work up.

Also be aware that loading near max pressure takes a heavy toll on your brass, both the primer pockets and the brass itself. Hot loads tend to reduce the brass life by 2 or 3 to 1 compared to loads that are middle of the load table.
 
Rimfire5,

Please cut and paste the forum's warning with QuickLOAD and other cautionary data as our lawyers have been through the wording. You can add more if you like. Just don't omit the board version.

748 is slower than Varget on the Hodgdon chart but has a higher bulk density which lets you get more in the case, which is why it can still work out with 55-grain bullets. The government's ball powder for M196 55-grain loads is WC844 which is a fast version of WC846, which is the 7.62 M80 ball powder and a WW II-era development originally used to load 303 British for the allies. WC844 is sold as H335 in canister grade.

I have used H335, but also tried Benchmark and H322 and IMR 8208XBR and IMR 3031 and IMR 4198. For 53-55 grains I've sort of settled on either H4198 or Reloader 10X for moderate velocity loads with good accuracy, and Benchmark and H4895, and Varget all do well for higher velocity. Which one works best depends on the conditions and which gun is shooting them.
 
My 5.56 load is 26.0 grains of Win 748 under a 55 grain Win or Hornady BT-FMJ. Think of this as a "95% M193 Load:" about 2,600 fps out of a 14.5" barrel, holding about 1 MOA out to 200 yards absent strong winds.
 
Max and near Max loads of Varget with any bullet are compressed according to Hodgdon. Several Hodgdon owned/retailed powders give compressed loads. Has to do with the size of the granules. As well as the case.
Compressed loads are nothing to worry about though. There's actually a fair bit of 'settling' room. The bullet will tamp the powder down with no fuss.
Keeping in mind that all manuals will be slightly different(Hodgdon's site shows 27.5 is Max and 25.5 is the Start for a 55 grain bullet using a 24" barrel, that usually isn't a whole rifle, with a 1 in 12 rifling twist.) because they reflect the conditions, powder lot and velocities found on the day of the test when using exactly the same components. That does not mean that one is better or safer than another.
"...Lyman publishes reloading data from a variety of sources..." They do their own testing. Unlike places like Lee who do no testing and use Hodgdon's data.
 
First, the Pmax for a .223 Rem SAAMI is 55,000 psi.
With a 55 grain bullet, a load of 26.4 grains of Varget is just under Pmax.
For a 69 grain bullet, a load of 24.2 is just under Pmax.
(The Sierra Manual does not list Varget as one of the powders tested with the .223 Remington.)

The Pmax for a 5.56x45 is 62,366 psi.
With a 55 grain bullet, a load of 27.3 grains of Varget is just under Pmax.
(The Sierra manual (they actually test) lists a range of 25.1 to 27.2 grs.)
For a 69 grain bullet, a load of 25.1 is just under Pmax according to QuickLoad.
(The Sierra manual lists a range of 23.3 to 26.1 grs.)
Click to expand...
--------------------------------------------------------
I think this may be not quite correct in concept

Rather than transcribing,and to provide a source,this is Western Powder;s explaination.

https://blog.westernpowders.com/201...56x45mm-military-nato-cartridge-and-chambers/

Pretty much its about NATO using a different way to measure pressure than SAAMI. There is an "apples and oranges" effect. Is about transducer placement. The same cartridge and load NATO pressure will be different than SAAMI

One source I looked at said SAAMI P-max is 58.000 psi for 5.56 and 55,000 P-max for 223. The European CIP standard,per the Western Powder article,shows approx the same P-max for both 223 and 5.56.

Generally speaking (with an exception described by Western regarding a variety of thin web Federal brass) the brass is essentially the same and interchangeable. 5.56 is not "higher pressure" brass.

The issue is simply a chamber throat detail. The .223 is a 1964 tech varmint approach round. 1 in 12 twist and 55 gr max bullets. Throat details optimized for that bullet.

Its not so much about 5.56 being a higher pressure round. Its about the longer 5.56 bullets being jammed to the lands of the .223 throat. That jumps pressure above .223 or 5.56 spec.

But here is a clue. A 1 in 12 twist rifle will put 62 and 69 gr bullets through keyhole shaped holes in the target.Accuracy will be horrid.

And why would we have a 1 in 9,or 8,or 7 twist? To shoot longer,heavier bullets! So,we chamber 1 in 9 r faster twist barrels accordngly. Maybe a Wylde?

The difference IS something to pay attention to, but there is some mythology around it.
 
I have a DPMS Panther, labeled .223 and 5.56mm. I used several powders when I first got it, with 55gr FMJ. At 50 yards, using 6" white paper plates as targets, I fired 5 shots each:

1) CFE-223 powder, 26.0 gr, group 0.715"
2) IMR-8208XBR 23.5gr, group 0.902"
3) H-4895, 25.0gr, group 0.902"
4) IMR 3031 23.5gr, group 0.902"
5) Varget 25.0gr, group 1.027"
6) BL-C(2) 25.0gr, group 1.527"

I'm still using CFE-223.
 
Regarding the 5.56 vs. 223 Pressures, the SAAMI number for 223 is based on conformal pressure transducer readings of M193 equivalent loads that are 52,000 CUP¹, but which was never adopted by NATO. Later, when NATO got into the picture, they found M193 didn't meet some of their test requirements and longer ranges and developed SS109, which raised pressure 5.8% on the copper crusher over M193, so this was at 55,000 CUP² (not related to the 55,000 PSI which the SAAMI system measures). When that 55,000 CUP bullet is measured by the NATO EVPAT protocol with their Kistler pressure transducers, its peak pressure measures 4300 bar (62,366 psi is the conversion), but in a SAAMI-type conformal transducer, it measures about 58,700 psi⁴ unless the conformal transducer has been calibrated with reference ammunition used by NATO.

Currently, the new M855A1 lead-free ammunition is running even higher pressures so that a faster powder can be used to produce less muzzle flash from an M4 barrel length. More rapid barrel erosion has been noted with that hotter stuff. I don't know what the pressure number is or by what system of measurement (though I believe Lake City has converted to the conformal transducer).

¹ Which the military does not call "CUP", but rather "PSI by copper crusher"; see MIL-C-9963F, Page 3, 3.71
² Which the military does not call "CUP", but rather "PSI by copper crusher"; see MIL-C-63989C, page 4, 3.7
³ See MIL-C-9963F, Page 3, 3.72
⁴ See MIL-C-63989C-AMENDMENT-4, Page 1, 3.7
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top