New to .223 - reloads seem slow?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lokichoki

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
297
Breaking in a new barrel on a dpms Oracle 5.56 1-9 carbine I am on the 2nd 5 shot group part of the break in. I know it's probably not necessary to break it in but I have 2 new oracles and just want to see if there will be a difference, anyway I loaded a batch of federal brass at first (same info below but at 24gr IMR4320) and they ran an average of 5 at 2474fps dry bore. This second batch was this

Created: 02-23-2017 16:00:04
Description: 223 rem 60gr hornady sp (#2270) imr4320 (lot1031215 5232) 24.5gr 2.20col
Notes 1: slight crimp
Notes 2: no pressure signs good feed
Distance to Chrono (FT): 8.00
Bullet Weight (gr): 60.000
Altitude (FT): 0.0
Temp: 72 °F
BP: 29.85 inHG
Shots
# FPS FT-LBS PF
5 2540 0.00 0.00
4 2553 0.00 0.00
3 2524 0.00 0.00
2 2547 0.00 0.00
1 2560 0.00 0.00
Average: 2544.80
StdDev: 13.77
Min: 2524
Max: 2560
Spread: 36
True MV: 2544.80
Shots/sec: 0.33

This seems slow to me the Lyman manual used a 24" and 20" barrel on there .223 REM loads but I don't see on the data which barrel was which in comparison seems odd and they stated for 60gr v-max at starting load 23.3 was at 2663 fps (I know it's not the same bullet!) Can anyone give me there thoughts, thanks and God bless,
lokichoki
 
If your barrel's bore and groove diameters are larger than those the load data was derived with, velocity can be much lower than expected.

Two people firing the same rifle and ammo can easily have over 50 fps difference in average velocity.
 
Rarely if ever will you match the velocity stated in load data. They are testing in lab conditions in a pressure barrel. I would not worry about the velocities you are getting. Concentrate on reliability and accuracy.

BTW, why are you using IMR 4320? That powder is on the slow side for the .223. You might get better results with at least a dozen faster powders IMO.
 
I purchased IMR4320 for price, availability and I'm a .223 newb, it does meter nicely in regards to less cutting and overall smoothness but it seems denser so it will throw +-3 grains and it takes only a sprinkle to gain a good amount, I will grab some comp is or cfe223
 
What is your barrel length? Assuming you have a 16" barrel and the data was for a 24" barrel you're giving up 8" of barrel. That could account for a big chunk of it. My 16" AR chronographs a 60 gr V-Max factory load at 2800 fps even though it is advertised at 3100 fps. I'd expect around 2850-2900 fps with that load from a 24" barrel. The 2500 fps you're getting isn't too far off if you're using a 16" barrel. The rest could be because of differences in the tolerances of different barrels as Bart pointed out.

You're just above the minimum load. You have some room to work with and I'd bet 2700-2800 fps with that bullet is possible.
 
I do plan on working up I have had no signs of pressure so far I need to get the Hornady data book since this projectile seems a little more obscure when it comes to data and info was relatively hard to obtain.
 
It is a 16" barrel btw I figured it would be slower than listed but it seemed more off than what I generally get otherwise from my other projects
 
27.3gr CFE223 behind Nosler 60gr Partition (2.250" OAL) produced 2894 fps (five shot average) from my 16", carbine gas, Yankee Hill bbl.
 
Last edited:
Until recently, all of my .223 experience was with 16 inch barrels on AR Carbines or 18 inch barrels on Mini-14s. I typically choose a powder from among the faster burning types in the load data.
  • My favorite load all-around is 20.3 (*) grains IMR-4198 under a Hornady 60 grain hollow point. From the AR it chronographs about 2,800 fps and out of the Mini, about 2,850.
  • I also use a lot of IMR-3031 and with 22.0 grains under the same Hornady 60 grain hollow point, I reliably get 2,700 fps out of the AR.
These are both considerably below the velociites suggested in most published data, but then much of the published data was tested using a longer barrel. IMR-4320 is on the burn rate charts as a "slower" powder than IMR-4198 or IMR-3031. Faster powders should suffer less loss in velocity as barrels shorten. So, if one of the faster powders is coming in 200 fps less than a 24 inch barrel under laboratory conditions, it doesn't seem to me that being abount 300 fps off with a slower burning powder is unreasonable.

(*) Please note that the 20.3 grains of IMR-4198 under a 60 grain Hornady bullet is slightly BELOW maximum in the 4th edition of the Hornady Handbook which I relied upon when I loaded approximately 2,000 rounds using it. The rounds have performed flawlessly in the intervening 32-35 years, BUT it should be noted that 20.3 grains of IMR-4198 is now shown as being ABOVE maximum in later editions of the Hornady Handbook.
 
I will take a look at these powders, since I'm not that wealthy I'll work this to a safe level for now I'm itching for hog hunt and eat me some pork! Hdwhit very well written I will definitely make sure not to get so caught up on the listed velocities and keep a good eye on pressure signs. I've just started using a chronograph this year and have enjoyed the additional benefits of being able to write a curve sheet etc (even though 300yds is my max available range near me in Bama)
Thanks for all the replies
 
I do plan on working up I have had no signs of pressure so far I need to get the Hornady data book since this projectile seems a little more obscure when it comes to data and info was relatively hard to obtain.
You have a Lyman manual, you can access powder manufacturers info online, nosler and Barnes offer load data online. If you really want hornady info without shelling out for the hornady manual, check out
http://www.loadbooks.com/Store.html
Just a thought, folks have pretty much covered my thoughts on your original post but I thought I would add this in for you.
 
Rarely if ever will you match the velocity stated in load data.

Generally, I agree, but...

Sierra Bullets used a Colt Match Target AR-15 with a 20" barrel rifle for developing their gas gun, service rifle loads in the version of the Sierra manual that I have. I happen to have a Colt Match Target AR-15 with a 20" barrel and the couple powder/bullet combinations I worked with matched Sierra's velocity data almost dead on.

When I got a "real" Service Rifle match rifle (Compass Lake), the velocities with the same loads that I shot in the Colt were about 10% faster.
 
Then why are so many listing the rifle used to get the data; Sierra Bullets, for example?
That's why I said rarely. Most of the data sources I use are testing in pressure barrels. I use mostly Hodgdon/ IMR/ Winchester Powders and the Hodgdon site as well as the Lyman manuals use pressure barrels.

I just looked at the new Hornady #10 manual and noticed they are listing the rifle used in the data. I had not noticed that before.
 
Hey again carbine85 I'm not attracted to 4320 it was the cheapest and available and it was listed in a large variety of weights and profiles I tend to look for the most bang for the buck and varying usefulness helps that's all, I do like IMR products and they seem readily available in my local so I tend to use what I have available but since I've gone deeper in the rabbit hole that is reloading I want the best
 
And no they aren't compressed I am working up to it I have apparently bought multiple bullets that the manufacturers want to make extra money by trying to make the data proprietary I feel like this is the case from the Hornady varminter SP to the barnes varminator
 
To me that's the worst thing about owning a chronograph, if you want your numbers to be close substituting a carbine length barrel vs a 24-26" barrel is going to be counter productive.

I'm actually shocked you are only 120 fps slower.
 
And no they aren't compressed I am working up to it I have apparently bought multiple bullets that the manufacturers want to make extra money by trying to make the data proprietary I feel like this is the case from the Hornady varminter SP to the barnes varminator
No no no pardner, you need to look at the tiny differences between Barnes anything and an sp from anyone. They're not trying to be proprietary in data, a Barnes in general gets seated deeper and is longer to begin with than the sp, thus you have different pressures with the same given load of powder, so you adjust accordingly. Hornady makes a good chunk of change on their manual, Barnes published online but has higher priced bullets, same with nosler, everyone is just making money their way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top