Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

lower charge on military .223

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by redw7blue, Dec 27, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. redw7blue

    redw7blue Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2008
    Messages:
    18
    Should I lower my powder weight on the military brass vs the commercial brass when loading for .223?
    I am using 24.5g of H335 with a 55g bullet.

    If I lowered 10% that would put me at 22.1g. That seems a bit low for the 55g bullet.
     
  2. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    You are fine.

    24.5 is just a scooch over the Hodgdon suggested 23.0 starting load.

    25.3 is max with any brass.

    Heavy GI brass is a fact in 30-06 & 7.62 NATO.
    Not so much in 5.56.

    Some commercial .223 brass is heavier then some GI 5.56 brass.

    rcmodel
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2008
  3. rg1

    rg1 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,239
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Here's an article that shows .223 Rem case weights and compares the weight of some military and commercial cases. Like rcmodel said, you should be fine with 24.5 grains of H335 and 55fmj bullets in any cases I've loaded.
    http://www.6mmbr.com/223Rem.html
    I have found some .223 brass cases that were heavier than RP, WIN, LC, WCC and I segregate them and do drop the charge 2-4 tenths of a grain and use them for plinking. I probably wouldn't have too but I do. Now if you go above 25 grains and near maximum you might want to drop charges a little if you run into a brand that is quite a bit heavier than normal.
     
  4. Doug b

    Doug b Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    785
    Location:
    NW Ohio
    Red 24.5 grs. of H335 & Noslers 55 gr.ballistic tip bullet, with a small mag. rifle primer is one sweet load.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page