.223 62gr & H-335 reloading question

[AshMan40]

Hornady does show and have data for their 223 62gr fmj, the link below is a Hornady
updated reloading page that was produced after their last 10th edition was released !
https://press.hornady.com/assets/site/hornady/files/load-data/223-rem-60-62gr-1.pdf
If you go to hornady website they list updates to their load data that is produced after their manuals are released

I'm new to the site (this is my 1st post) but not new to reloading. I'm confused when it comes to load data for H335 and 62gr 223 Rem....
This is my 1st 1lb can of H335. I've read great things about this powder and found data to load M193 and M855 equivalent rounds. Since my primary platform is an AR in different barrel lengths I'm looking for load data that will produce reliable and relatively accurate rounds for my various barrels (1:7 to 1:9 twist rates).

My Hornady 9th Edition and the above link from Hornady's site (post the 10th Edition) shows:
Hornady = 20.1~22.9gr (3000fps) at 2.229" COAL with 62gr FMJ bullets

I found similar load data from Hodgdon's site:
Hodgdon = 19.3~21.4gr (2887fps) at 2.260" COAL with 62gr SFT SCIR bullets

So I loaded some initial test rounds of Armscor FMJ 62gr at the recommended 2.250" COAL (light crimp into the cannuler groove). My charges range from 20.0~21.5gr Looking at the above data, all good right?

Then I recalled I have load data for 223 Rem from Nosler Sierra and Speer load manuals. I look up the data...
Nosler = 23.0~25.0gr (3102fps) at 2.180" COAL with Nosler FBHP 62gr Varmageddon bullets
Sierra = 22.8~25.6gr (2950fps) at 2.250" COAL with 63gr SMP bullets
Speer = 23.0~25.0gr (2885fps) at 2.255" COAL with 62gr FMJBT bullets

I also found another link on the Hodgdon page for a 63gr bullet:
Hodgdon = 22.5~25.0gr (3051fps) at 2.200" COAL with 63gr SIE SP bullets

What???!!! The starting loads from these manuals are basically the max loads of the previous two! The starting loads are a full grain above the max load from Hodgdon, the powder manufacturer. The Sierra max load is 4.2gr more than the Hodgdon max load!!! Look at the Speer load data... the max load has a lower fps than the Hodgdon max load data even though the charge is 3.6gr more and the COAL is shorter!
Now I know some will site that the rifles used for the testing were different. Yes, the Speer data quotes a 22" bbl bolt action Ruger M77 and the Hodgdon data quotes a 24" rifle. The Hornady data is thru a 26" Remington 700. So the longer bbl will result in higher fps (and pressures) with less powder, but really that much of a difference!?!? Maybe the cases used varied between 223 can NATO 5.56mm cases with different internal volumes? The Nosler and Sierra data may be the most relevant to me as I an shooting these from an AR platform (7", 16" and 20" barrels) and the load data indicates a 20" barreled 1:7 twist rifle (Sierra specifically states their data is from a Colt HBAR AR -15A2).

So, in addition to the 20.0~21.5gr loads I started with, I continued and now have 62gr FMJ rounds all the way to 25.6gr still with a 2.250" COAL. This seems to be in line with some of the data others have posted. I've worked up loads for 52gr HP, 55gr FMJ, 62g FMJ and 69gr BTHP Match using other powders (BLC2 and CFE223) without much difference between the different sources, but the 62gr bullets were very different.

I'll keep a close eye on pressure signs as I work my way up the ladder. I'll probably hit the range this weekend and report back my findings.

 

[Walkalong]

Welcome to THR AshMan40

H-335 is a good choice and I am sure the members can help you out with this.

 

[Blue68f100]

I find this typical when you start comparing data from different sources. Your going at it right. Start low and work up. I normally take an average of the hi and low and use that to start with. Once I reach max with NO pressure signs I will proceed on up cautiously. I used H335 in the past but have had the best results with Ramshot TAC. If your loading to 5.56 load data it will be higher than 223R data.

 

[Toprudder]

You will find this situation quite often, where the charge ranges don't even overlap. Sometimes it has to do with different brands of bullets being used, with different hardness of the jacket, or different size bearing surface - whatever.

When I run into situations like this, I err on the side of caution and start with a load that is no higher than mid-range of the lowest charge range listed, and work up from there. I may start out with large steps (maybe 0.5gn) in the charge level, and maybe just one round at each step, until I start to see pressure signs or expected velocity, then I go back and work in small steps to find an accuracy node.

 

[Kaldor]

Take a look at a Lyman manual if you want shockingly high starting loads. Hornady loads are always very low. Hodgdon is somewhere in between, as are most powder manufacturers.

Honestly, I would have absolutely no issues starting out at about 22.5gr of H335 with a 62gr bullet.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Welcome to the forum...

For semi-autos I use almost nothing else than H335 for my .223 ammo. The difference in data reflects the different testing methods and equipment used and the slight differences in bullet lengths. I never did like that explanation but it's true. Add the fact some of that data might be for 5.56mm service rifle ammo which allows for higher pressures it can truly be frustrating.

Like said above, take an average of the data, start low and check for problems. When you find an accurate load stick with it. You should have no problems with that 62gr bullet in your different barrels. Please come back and let us know how you do. That will increase all of our knowledge.

Good luck and again, welcome to this forum.

 

[RedLeg105]

Welcome to the forum.

I reload for three different .223/5.56 rifles using H335, and 62 grain bullets (My current favorite is Nosler Varmageddon.). Two of my rifles are 1:9 twist, the other one is 1:8. The most accurate (100 yd.) load, using these 62 grain bullets, that I have found out of all three rifles is 23.5 gr.of H335 at 2.25" O.A.L. with no crimp. This loading was determined by ladder testing different loads in my different rifles over many range trips. (Damn! That was fun!)

The NATO loading for M855 (62gr.) Ball cartridges is 26.1 grains of WC844 (The non-cannister version of H335), which yields a velocity of 3025 ft/sec. At 23.5 gr, my loads are well below the max., but I found that as my loads increased the accuracy fell off.

As usual, with different rifles, different bullets, and different shooters, YMMV!

 

[ArchAngelCD]

The NATO loading for M855 (62gr.) Ball cartridges is 26.1 grains of WC844 (The non-cannister version of H335), which yields a velocity of 3025 ft/sec. At 23.5 gr, my loads are well below the max., but I found that as my loads increased the accuracy fell off.

Just a note on using WC844, most times the load you were using with one lot of powder will not be the same with the next lot. I have found a wide range of charge weights from lot to lot, that's why it's not a commercial powder.

 

[fotheringill]

Welcome.

"What???!!! The starting loads from these manuals are basically the max loads of the previous two!"

Welcome to the world of reloading and only one of my Holy Cow moments about what I have read.

I would suggest taking the average of all and working both higher and lower from that point in loads. If you see pressure signs on the fired case, stop increasing. The only way to know what works for your rifle is to use your rifle for zeroing in on the best load.

As to choosing the best performing propellant for your actual rifle, more than one trip to the powder smorgasbord is going to be required. I have one .223 rifle that doesn't perform well with Varget but does well with Benchmark and another that does well with Varget but is all over the place with CFE223

 

[rg1]

Careful going above 24 grains of H335 with 62 FMJ's. In my rifles 24.5 would be maximum. A good load for me with M855 pulled bullets, RP 7 1/2 primers, in RP or LC cases is 24 grains for approx. 2940 fps. Just for info 24.5 grains gets up to 3000 fps. All in 20" AR's. I would have no problem starting a load work up at 22 grains. Still a safe idea to take all load data sources into account. Your components may give different results in your rifles.

 

[hdwhit]

AshMan40 wrote:
I'm looking for load data that will produce reliable and relatively accurate rounds for my various barrels (1:7 to 1:9 twist rates).

In order to do that, you will need to simultaneously develop the load for all the barrels you want to shoot it out of; or at least work with a 1:7 and a 1:9 rifle at the same time. Each rifle is different and when you add underlying changes, such as barrel length, size of the gas port, twist rates, etc., a load that works fine in one gun may group like a shotgun out of another.

If you want a single load that works well out of all your rifles, you will probably have to develop some sort of compromise loading that sacrifices velocity and accuracy out of some rifles in order to get the best overall performance out of all of them. That's what I have done.

What???!!! The starting loads from these manuals are basically the max loads of the previous two!

Yes, but you're dealing with different bullets from different manufacturers and different COALs.

Put a micrometer on the bullets you have. I have 55 grain bullets that are listed as .224 that are actually 0.2234 and others from another manufacturer that are 0.2244. Obviously, it takes more pressure to use the barrel to size the larger bullet down to fit the barrel and that's probably where some of the variability is coming from.

Then I recalled I have load data for 223 Rem from Nosler Sierra and Speer load manuals.

It is not unusual for load data to change from one edition of a manual to the next. This is because powders vary from lot to lot and bullets vary over time as well. In the early 1980's, I loaded several thousand rounds of .223 Remington using a Hornady 60 grain bullet on top of 20.3 grains of IMR-4198 based on Hornday Hanbook #4. At the time, that was less than a maximum load. Fast foward three decades and Hornady #8 says that I'm 1.2 grains ABOVE maximum. My leftovers from the 1980's still work just fine, but since I'm now using bullets and powder from the 21st Century, I'll follow currently published load data for new loads.

 

[AshMan40]

I am hoping based on the positive feedback on H335 that is will be a good performing powder for all my rifles, but maybe that is just wishful thinking. I do like that it is a ball powder as it meters fairly consistently.

Back in college, when I only had a single AR rifle (a Colt Sporter2) I picked up reloading (because I was a poor student) and found that each rifle had its own personality. The 52gr HP rounds I made were crazy accurate in my 20" barreled rifle, but were horrible in my friend's 16" barreled AR Carbine. And the hand loaded 69gr BTHP Match rounds that were great in his carbine were lousy in mine. A third friend's AR shot best with factory 55gr FMJ (the cheap stuff). We always thought he was the lucky one.
After a year of working up loads for my one and only AR, I could consistently place the hand loaded 52gr rounds into a 1" group at 100yds with the occasional "quarter-sized" ragged hole. I don't have my old load data but I know I was using Sierra bullets and IMR4198 powder (which was a pain to meter!) I'll have to start work on recreating that round.
I have a can of a M855 but most of the indoor ranges don't allow any projectiles that can attract a magnet. I mostly use the M855 at the few outdoor ranges as "blasting ammo" so I can collect the LC brass and reload them.

I agree that in my experience the max load rounds are rarely ever accurate, but I have found the best accuracy is typically at the hotter end of the range of charges. Maybe 1 or 2gr shy of max. This is why this situation is a bit frustrating. I thought my first batch would find me an accurate load because it was all the way up to what I thought was near max, but then I find it really wasn't and the load range goes much higher. I'm actually worried that my lightest loads won't even cycle my action?! I guess I shouldn't complain about having an excuse for having to load more rounds !

 

[Walkalong]

I guess I shouldn't complain about having an excuse for having to load more rounds !

That's the spirit.

 

[sourdough44]

I realize H-335 has a good amount of history with the 223 case, and others. When you go powder buying next time, take a look at Ramshot TAC, especially for bullets over 55 grains.

It meters like tap water and burns clean.

As to the loading charges listed in different manuals, that's why one needs to do some testing before loading a supply for the bunker. Some lower charges may not cycle in some semi-autos. If often consult at least several manuals then make a determination on where to start.