Loading Civilian Vs Military 223 brass

[45lcshooter]

10%off max load for Mil brass. I never run hot loads through the 223, because I have a 308 to handle hot loads. Just remember not all brass is created equal, that goes as well as the same manufacture. As you go up your powder scale, just watch for the tall tell signs of pressure. You will do alright. Happy loading.

 

[steve4102]

10%off max load for Mil brass.

Not in the 223/5.56!

 

[ArchAngelCD]

How is it any different than coming out and labeling perfectly safe advice as "bad advice"? Don't call my safe advice "bad advice" that isn't high road either.

I'm not going to continue this because it's not fair to the OP. Saying something is bad advice is in no way the same as calling someone names, even if that name is fairly unoffensive as being called a snob. I'm commenting on the information, you are attacking me personally. Don't do it again! If you think it's the same you are surely mistaken.

Say what you please from here on in because I won't answer. Hijacking a thread is wrong.

 

[Bruno2]

It is a Myth that 5.56 Military brass has less case capacity then it's civilian brother the 223 Rem.

Then you listed this as a quote:

While this is most often the situation with both 308 Winchester and 30-06 cases, it is less true with the 223 brass. We have found that military cases often have significantly more capacity than several brands of commercial brass.

So Steve even your quote doesn't give a definitive answer to the question. Yet you keep contradicting the people saying go with 10 % less to be safe. So why are you riding a so so theory on military cases having more capacity than commercial cases? The quote didn't say it's never true or always have the same or more capacity. I just don't understand why you are being so persistent .

Don't do it again! If you think it's the same you are surely mistaken.

Whatever dude, get over yourself.

 

[steve4102]

You left out this part from Sierra.

Again, take the time to do a side-by-side comparison of the cases you are working with and adjust your load as needed. There may be no need for such a reduction with the 223.

Your statement to Automatically reduce Military brass by 10% is incorrect and bad advice. As Sierra states, there may be no need for any reduction, take the time to check for yourself. I have, my results.

Rem 223 = 29.9gr H20

GFL 223 = 29.0gr H20

LC 5.56 = 30.4gr H20

Others have tested their brass as well.



http://www.6mmbr.com/223rem.html

 

[steve4102]

Lets look at it from another angle.

Lets say I load 26.2gr of Tac with 62gr bullet, Max according to Ramshot using my LC cases with 30.4gr H20.

Cartridge          : 5.56 mm NATO - 5.56 x 45 mm
Bullet             : .224, 62, IMI FMJBT M855
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.260 inch or 57.40 mm
Barrel Length      : 24.0 inch or 609.6 mm
Powder             : Ramshot TAC ?

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step    Fill. Charge   Vel.  Energy   Pmax   Pmuz  Prop.Burnt B_Time
 %       %    Grains   fps   ft.lbs    psi    psi      %        ms

-20.0   79    20.96   2612     939   31184   5976     90.0    1.322
-18.0   81    21.48   2675     985   33339   6152     91.2    1.286
-16.0   83    22.01   2737    1031   35646   6323     92.3    1.252
-14.0   85    22.53   2799    1079   38114   6486     93.4    1.216
-12.0   87    23.06   2861    1127   40761   6641     94.4    1.181
-10.0   89    23.58   2923    1177   43566   6789     95.3    1.147
-08.0   91    24.10   2985    1227   46552   6927     96.2    1.114
-06.0   93    24.63   3047    1278   49750   7055     97.0    1.082
-04.0   95    25.15   3108    1330   53175   7174     97.6    1.052  ! Near Maximum !
-02.0   97    25.68   3169    1383   56848   7282     98.2    1.022  ! Near Maximum !
[B]+00.0   99    26.20   3230    1436   60790   7378     98.7    0.994  ! Near Maximum ![/B]
+02.0  101    26.72   3290    1490   65024   7463     99.2    0.966  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+04.0  103    27.25   3350    1545   69577   7536     99.5    0.940  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+06.0  105    27.77   3410    1601   74481   7595     99.8    0.914  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+08.0  107    28.30   3469    1657   79768   7641     99.9    0.890  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+10.0  109    28.82   3528    1713   85478   7673    100.0    0.866  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba     99    26.20   3363    1557   72341   7163    100.0    0.927  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba     99    26.20   3045    1277   49577   7241     93.5    1.082

Now I take my GFL brass with 29gr of H20 capacity as this is Civilian 223 brass I load it 10% hotter than my LC brass or 28.8gr of Tac.

 Cartridge          : 5.56 mm NATO - 5.56 x 45 mm
Bullet             : .224, 62, IMI FMJBT M855
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.260 inch or 57.40 mm
Barrel Length      : 24.0 inch or 609.6 mm
Powder             : Ramshot TAC ?

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step    Fill. Charge   Vel.  Energy   Pmax   Pmuz  Prop.Burnt B_Time
 %       %    Grains   fps   ft.lbs    psi    psi      %        ms

-20.0   92    23.04   2923    1176   44981   6607     95.1    1.128
-18.0   94    23.62   2993    1234   48592   6757     96.1    1.091
-16.0   96    24.19   3063    1292   52489   6895     97.0    1.056
-14.0   99    24.77   3133    1352   56718   7019     97.7    1.022  ! Near Maximum !
-12.0  101    25.34   3203    1413   61315   7130     98.4    0.989  ! Near Maximum !
-10.0  103    25.92   3272    1474   66319   7226     98.9    0.958  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
-08.0  106    26.50   3341    1537   71775   7306     99.4    0.928  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
-06.0  108    27.07   3410    1601   77735   7370     99.7    0.899  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
-04.0  110    27.65   3478    1666   84261   7416     99.9    0.871  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
-02.0  113    28.22   3546    1731   91424   7445    100.0    0.844  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+[B]00.0  115    28.80   3613    1797   99308   7459    100.0    0.818  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE![/B]
+02.0  117    29.38   3679    1864  108012   7468    100.0    0.793  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+04.0  119    29.95   3746    1932  117656   7473    100.0    0.768  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+06.0  122    30.53   3812    2001  128383   7473    100.0    0.745  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+08.0  124    31.10   3878    2071  140368   7467    100.0    0.722  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+10.0  126    31.68   3944    2142  153826   7456    100.0    0.700  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba    115    28.80   3718    1904  118113   7135    100.0    0.770  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba    115    28.80   3450    1639   80932   7711     98.2    0.883  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

 

[Bruno2]

Your statement to Automatically reduce Military brass by 10% is incorrect and bad advice

Again being safe is not bad advice. To just say there needs to be no reduction is bad advice. Matter of fact its terrible advice.

Again, take the time to do a side-by-side comparison of the cases you are working with and adjust your load as needed. There may be no need for such a reduction with the 223.

Right, I left out the other part where it yields to no definite answer .

I have, my results

How do you know you even did the test right?

 

[Beentown]

Arch, Steve...

You are correct and I see no need in you going so indepth and wasting your time. Seems like some find it hard to be incorrect even though we all are at some point.

 

[SC_Dave]

I appreciate the help, but, I sure didn't mean to start all of this......

 

[CountryUgly]

Just my personal experience but when approaching max loads on work ups I've done I have shown pressure signs (flattened primers) at about .2 grains sooner with LC 11 & 09 brass vs Rem brass...

 

[steve4102]

How do you know you even did the test right?

Ouch!

 

[Bruno2]

I know that sounded a little more rough than it should have. I didn't mean it to sound that abrasive. The reason I asked was b/c I have been running the test through my head a little. Now granted I have a little experience with controlled scientific experiments and how to conduct one.

To start with we are dealing with a denomination of mass that is very minoot . We all know a grain is 1/7000 of a pound. With a degree of mass so small anything could throw the results off. The gr weight would have to be checked in the brass. IOW the brass full of water would have to go to the scale. A person would have to check a few like pcs of brass to be sure its accurate (hence the control). Water changes density with temperature so everything would have to be checked with the same temp of water too.Then you have the surface tension factor. Surface tension could let more water be weighed than the brass could actually hold. Then you have to be sure all the cases are filled to the same level including surface tension and I am not really sure how that could be done short of just a few peoples opinion.

That's sort of the basics of what would have to be done to get somewhat accurate. Not to mention coal would factor in it as well .Sierra probably has a facility and personnel that could execute the process w/o error. It would be a little more difficult for a person to do it at home w/o a lab.