Best twist rate for 55, 62, and 75+ grain .223/5.56 bullets?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TTv2

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
4,997
I'm gathering information for AR builds I'm planning on doing. I have two separate rifles in mind: A lightweight build that will involve a pencil barrel or other fairly skinny barrel meant for 55 grain XM197 and 62 grain M855 ammo and then a heavy barrel for the heavy 75+ grain bullets.

What twist rates are the absolute best for these builds?
 
Maybe I’m mistaken, but it would seem to me that the purpose for the builds would help more than the bullet weight.

For instance my carbine general use, SHTF, plinking AR has a 16” 1:7 twist. The 3 gun rifle I just built has an 18” 1:8 twist.

If I was building a gun for light bullet for varmit shooting I’d use different configurations. Likewise if I was going heavy for other uses.
 
I've got an1-7 in the upper I've got right now, might as well have been a 1-8 or 9 as I'd have to single load any if the bullets that need the faster twist.

How many projectiles over 75gr actually function from mag length? I know I've heard of guys using the 77smks at mag length, but even the 75 Amax we're a little deep when I tried them?
 
TTv2, XM197 and a 1:14 twist dependent on barrel length is competition worthy. 63 grain Match Quality Ammo and a 1:9 twist has scored many a clean round competitively out to 600 yards. 75+ grain projectiles at what barrel length? Twist ratio and Barrel length both need to be optimized for the competition range expected, don't fall into the fallacy of attempting to use a .22 caliber center fire for actual Sniper Rifle Duties. JMHO. Military Range Paper is the best use for a Rodent Rifle. Count Scores not Coup.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_coup)
 
How many projectiles over 75gr actually function from mag length?

One

77smks at mag length

There may be others, but I gather that is what everyone means when it is said.
I have seen reports of Amaxs seated deep and super crimped. There was still a space between the case and bullet. Evidently, they still functioned. The tipped, low drag bullets are seated too far into the powder for my preference.

A seven works well for many things, unless competitive one hundred bench rest is in the plans. A sixteen inch barrel in seven is ok for fifty grain. A thirty inch barrel in seven twist is too much for them.
 
Maybe I’m mistaken, but it would seem to me that the purpose for the builds would help more than the bullet weight.

For instance my carbine general use, SHTF, plinking AR has a 16” 1:7 twist. The 3 gun rifle I just built has an 18” 1:8 twist.

If I was building a gun for light bullet for varmit shooting I’d use different configurations. Likewise if I was going heavy for other uses.
The lightweight one is for combat out to 400 yards. Beyond that, I would be using the heavy barrel upper and 77 grain projectiles.

The heavier one is for longer range, but also general range shooting, maybe some rifle matches for when I feel like coming out from under the rock I live.
 
I like 1:8 and 1:9 twist barrels. 1:8 should cover you with all the heavy stuff, but will also handle down to 55gr.
1:9 would be better for lighter bullets, but will also work fine with 62gr. The big plus with the 1:9 is if your shooting non military soft point ammo, that have thinner jackets.
 
basically whatever is in the upper 70's in weight, probably 77 grain as that's most popular.

The popular 77 is the SMK, which is designed to be loaded to AR mag length. Some of the lighter 75’s cannot be loaded to mag length. So which bullet you actually want to use matters. If you only want to shoot the “popular 77,” the SMK, then get a 1:8”.

For the higher BC 75’s, and any which must be single loaded, get a 1:7”, you won’t be wrong for anything 40-77grns, assuming you’re not talking about a sub-16” barrel. The long 75’s will have to be single loaded, as will the 80’s, which may not stabilize, as they may need to be seated too deeply to get the powder under them. 1:6.5” if you want to touch the 90’s, and be sure your throat is sufficiently deep to run them, even single loaded.

1:8” is enough for the short made 77smk and 73 ELD even in a 16”. For the longer, high BC 75’s, you’ll want a 1:7”.
 
Its amazing how often this topic comes up, and not just here. The US mil uses 1:7 on the M4 and MK18. Most civilian barrels are 1:9. 1:8 are used by companies like Larue and Barnes Precision (I have both), with the 3 gunners and the like in mind, supposedly to stabilize the heavier projectiles like 75 and 77. 1:8 was used in the MK12 series of rifles that were issued for a number of years in SOCOM, to be used with MK262 (77 SMK). The prevailing "wisdom" is that you MUST have a 1:8 to stabilize these heavier rounds. I have found that this isn't true, no matter how many times it is repeated. Overseas, we used the MK262 and the 75 grain Hornady BTHPM exclusively, with deadly accuracy and effects from the M4, 10" MK18, and MK12. Monday I fired the 75 grain Hornady through both a garage-built AR with a DPMS 1:9 barrel, which gave me a 1.5 MOA group, and a Mossberg MVP, which got sub-MOA- both guns were suppressed. I have gotten similar results from both of those guns using the MK262 round as well. I also found that the LWRC 10" I was issued as a civilian contractor had no issues with stabilization or accuracy with the MK262 at 25 yard zero range (and MUCH better than green tip), although I was not able to do detailed testing as with the other rifles.
 
In actual Combat only one round from a 1:14 twist 20 inch M16 has been banned for being inhumane. XM197 55 grain .223/5.56 is the only rifle/round combination that was considered to be to destructive to be included in the Geneva Convention. Look it up and you shall understand why M855 was adopted. So if you want an actually proven combat round, expend an XM197 from a 20 inch 1:14 twist M16 . JMHO.
 
1:7. I load 77gr SMK in my AR which fit the mags no problem. They are a bit of a tight fit but I've had no problems with them hanging up in the mag. My loads with 4064 have yeilded so very accurate rounds. I've not found a weight my 1:7 won't shoot, though I've never gone below 55gr. But 77gr it loves.
 
In actual Combat only one round from a 1:14 twist 20 inch M16 has been banned for being inhumane. XM197 55 grain .223/5.56 is the only rifle/round combination that was considered to be to destructive to be included in the Geneva Convention. Look it up and you shall understand why M855 was adopted. So if you want an actually proven combat round, expend an XM197 from a 20 inch 1:14 twist M16 . JMHO.
The only reference I find to 197 is as a high pressure proofing round. Do you have a source or citation for this claim?
 
The only reference I find to 197 is as a high pressure proofing round. Do you have a source or citation for this claim?
Hague Conventions addresses not the Geneva Conventions.

See Laws of War : Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

A catchall phrase was added in 1907 on address additional concerns in the Second Hague Convention.

Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907
Section II, Chapter I, Article 23
"To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

The later 1928 Geneva Protocol only addressed Chemical and Biological weapons.

The earlier Geneva Conventions dealt with the treatment of people in war, not armaments.
From Infogalactic
"Conventions
In diplomacy, the term convention does not have its common meaning as an assembly of people. Rather, it is used in diplomacy to mean an international agreement, or treaty. The first three Geneva Conventions were revised, expanded, and replaced, and the fourth one was added, in 1949.

  • The Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field was adopted in 1864. It was significantly revised and replaced by the 1906 version,[15] the 1929 version, and later the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.[16]
  • The Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea was adopted in 1906.[17] It was significantly revised and replaced by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.[18]
  • The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was adopted in 1929.[19] It was significantly revised and replaced by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.[20]
  • The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War was adopted in 1949.[21]
With three Geneva Conventions revised and adopted, and the fourth added, in 1949 the whole set is referred to as the "Geneva Conventions of 1949" or simply the "Geneva Conventions". The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 196 countries.[1]" https://infogalactic.com/info/Geneva_conventions

Want to play around (see the equations) with the math and physics of barrel twist and some considerations about different variables affecting projectiles, http://www.fulton-armory.com/\faqs\AR-FAQs\ARTwists.html

From what I remember, the original 1:14 twist was moved to 1:12 due to cold weather testing in Alaska.

Here is a decent conversation dealing with AR twist rates and projectiles on an AR forum http://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-35029.html
 
For the pencil barrel build, 1:7, 1:8, and 1:9 would all work interchangeably. I would just buy whatever barrel meets your weight and cost specs, and wouldn't give twist a second thought.

For the HBAR build, I would go with 1:7.
 
1 in 9 seems to have fallen out of favor, but it will stabilize up to 62 Gr bullets just fine. You will need a slower twist for the 75+ ones.
 
Alright, looks like I'm gonna be doing 1:8 for the pencil barrel and 1:7 for the heavy barrel. Thanks fellas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top