N555
Member
Accuracy.
Nearly all mini14s are over gassed so they seem to run fine on a start or mid load of H322.
Pressure is 223 level.
Reloading for a Mini-14
- Thread starter westernrover
- Start date
Nearly all mini14s are over gassed so they seem to run fine on a start or mid load of H322.
Pressure is 223 level.
N555
Member
I'm usually loading M193, M855, Sierra TMK which is a 60gr I think.
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,613
Bullets
I scored more than a thousand Hornady 55 grain CX. I believe this type of bullet (monolithic copper expanding) is ideal for the 223 cartridge that tends to suffer from under-penetration with almost every other type of middle-weight bullet suitable for the 1:9 twist. Old-fashioned FMJ achieve good penetration but they suffer on barriers and from unpredictable yaw effects. The M855 addresses these issues, but seems to suffer from poor axial symmetry, perhaps even more so in the 1:7 twist barrels. Besides the CX, I have enough Barnes MPG for a 3-day class where lead-free frangible are required. Both the CX and the MPG are flat-base. The .224 version of the CX does not feature a polymer tip like most of the other CX. The MPG is considerably longer than the CX. It is a long bullet since most of the 55 grains is made up of powdered tin and copper. I selected it in lieu of Sinterfire because I believe the gilding metal jacket will be superior for feeding from the magazine.
No Compressed Powder Loads
My Redding Competition Seating die came with a warning not to use it to seat bullets over compressed loads (discussed in detail elsewhere). A lot of the powders that develop higher velocities in 223 depend on compressed loads inside the small case. Slower powders that use high charge weights like CFE223, A2520, StaBall Match, and even some loads for BL-C(2), 748, and 4895 are likely to be compressed. So would Varget. While I wouldn't be averse to experimenting with some of these, I'm not wanting to buy pounds of several and shoot them all to find out. In my experience, that is the best way to learn, but my goals for the Mini-14 are modest and I can probably find a powder where the first 8 pounds won't go to waste.
Powder Alternatives
I believe LT-32 would be an outstanding powder for 223, but I don't think I'm willing to give up the velocity for the half-MOA or whatever it might gain me. The effective range of my sights and the size of my targets limits the benefits of increased accuracy. I'm not putting a huge scope on a folding Mini, neither am I shooting tiny varmints or match targets. I passed over 8208 for the same reason, though I don't think it has the quality of LT-32, it would also likely suffer lower velocities.
I have two pounds left of 8# of H335. I'll see where it takes me. I was just going to buy another 8#, but I'm betting I can get more velocity at a lower pressure with something different and before I'm forced into compressed loads. Maybe I could do it with BL-C(2).
I think higher velocities are developed within a given maximum pressure by increasing the area under the pressure/time-travel curve. This is done by using a larger volume of a slower (deterred) powder, by using a progressive rate powder, or both. I think of a progressive rate powder as one that starts out with a slower burn rate but which converts to gas at a higher rate further into the combustion. Progressivity is achieved either by granule shape like a perforated cylinder the surface area of which increases as it burns and the perforation expands, or by burning through a deterrent coating on a spherical ball where the core has a higher energy density. Because these qualities aren't isolated from other powder characteristics, I could be mistaken in practice, but I developed a suspicion that slow, degressive powders are likely to fill my case and get compressed before they deliver the highest velocities. Given a higher case volume, like Valkyrie, Nosler, 22-250, etc., they may be the way to go, but with 223 Remington, my unleaded bullets would be pushing up against the rule I've been given not to compress. Therefore, I am favoring more progressive powders. I believe Hornady does the same with their factory loading for the 55 grain CX which they market in their "Superperformance" line where that line touts progressive powders like "Superperformance" powder -- though it is doubtful the powder by that particular name is featured in the 223 Remington or 5.56 NATO cartridges. I don't know what they do use. I don't even know if it is worth trying to duplicate since I've never used it. I could try what I believe are more progressive powders in an appropriate burn-rate range. Those would be A2230 or A2460. It should be noted that progressive powders are not a new thing. They go back at least as far as nitroglycerin. Red Dot and Ball-C are notably progressive.
I've dismissed the long-stick extruded powders since I want to meter by volume with my Harrel's measure. I don't want to weigh every charge for a Mini-14. There are some short-stick powders I have considered like the already mentioned LT-32 and 8208. H322, 2015 and Benchmark are others. Those first three are related at least by history, all wannabe T-32 or whatever someone thought was an improvement on it. 2015 is supposed to be a slower-rate version of LT-32 that shares its geometry, allowing them to be blended. Based on multiple data sources, it still falls short of the velocity I think would serve me best.
The slower single-base extruded powders (Varget, 4064, N140) are likely to have too low energy density to get the velocity I want in the confines of an uncompressed load. The 4895's are about right, but won't flow through my measure as well as ball.
So my current thinking is to try the H335 that I already have and then maybe gamble on A2460 to see if I can get any better result.
Die Bushing
I received the dies and other tools and tested the .243 SAC bushing I ordered on the fired LC brass. My loaded necks were .246 and I believe the LC brass averages around 11 or 12 thou (.246 minus .224 equals .022 divided by 2 neck walls is .011) hence why I ordered .243" because I wanted an ID 3 thou less than my loaded cartridge. That way the expander ball would pull the ID back out 1 thou, and I'd have 2 thou of neck tension. My necks were .255" OD after firing. I have had bushings size brass down smaller than the bushing diameter (opposite of spring-back) when sizing down very far, and I have had to size down using incrementally smaller bushings. Thankfully, the .243" SAC bushing sized the necks down to .243" with no expander in the die. I installed the carbide button, and the necks came out .244" -- perfect -- no collection of bushings for me.
Lee Deluxe APP
I reluctantly ordered a Lee ACP back in February. I suspected it would be unsatisfying. I had been considering it for more than a year. The video by F-Class John convinced me it could work -- with a few fixes like the carboard flap thing taped on -- you know, like you expect from Lee. My ACP was a colossal failure. I'm not even going to get into it because it's moot now. Lee discontinued it. They offered me the Deluxe APP at a discount. I did say that when I was buying the ACP that I would have gladly paid twice as much for the machine if it worked. So that's what I did. The Deluxe APP seems to be working. It's not fool-proof -- it'll double-feed primers if the cases stop flowing, and it can fail to eject cases if the handle stroke is not consistent. But I can deal with a little jiggling. Even though I got the APP, I didn't get the primer pocket swager for it. Instead, I bought the Lee die that does it on the regular press. I have a very sturdy press and stand I think I'll prefer for swaging.
I might pause this project for a while because I've probably got to get a gas bushing. I'm going to put together a sling for the rifle and do some other things. I'll get back to reloading when I have some brass piled up.
I scored more than a thousand Hornady 55 grain CX. I believe this type of bullet (monolithic copper expanding) is ideal for the 223 cartridge that tends to suffer from under-penetration with almost every other type of middle-weight bullet suitable for the 1:9 twist. Old-fashioned FMJ achieve good penetration but they suffer on barriers and from unpredictable yaw effects. The M855 addresses these issues, but seems to suffer from poor axial symmetry, perhaps even more so in the 1:7 twist barrels. Besides the CX, I have enough Barnes MPG for a 3-day class where lead-free frangible are required. Both the CX and the MPG are flat-base. The .224 version of the CX does not feature a polymer tip like most of the other CX. The MPG is considerably longer than the CX. It is a long bullet since most of the 55 grains is made up of powdered tin and copper. I selected it in lieu of Sinterfire because I believe the gilding metal jacket will be superior for feeding from the magazine.
No Compressed Powder Loads
My Redding Competition Seating die came with a warning not to use it to seat bullets over compressed loads (discussed in detail elsewhere). A lot of the powders that develop higher velocities in 223 depend on compressed loads inside the small case. Slower powders that use high charge weights like CFE223, A2520, StaBall Match, and even some loads for BL-C(2), 748, and 4895 are likely to be compressed. So would Varget. While I wouldn't be averse to experimenting with some of these, I'm not wanting to buy pounds of several and shoot them all to find out. In my experience, that is the best way to learn, but my goals for the Mini-14 are modest and I can probably find a powder where the first 8 pounds won't go to waste.
Powder Alternatives
I believe LT-32 would be an outstanding powder for 223, but I don't think I'm willing to give up the velocity for the half-MOA or whatever it might gain me. The effective range of my sights and the size of my targets limits the benefits of increased accuracy. I'm not putting a huge scope on a folding Mini, neither am I shooting tiny varmints or match targets. I passed over 8208 for the same reason, though I don't think it has the quality of LT-32, it would also likely suffer lower velocities.
I have two pounds left of 8# of H335. I'll see where it takes me. I was just going to buy another 8#, but I'm betting I can get more velocity at a lower pressure with something different and before I'm forced into compressed loads. Maybe I could do it with BL-C(2).
I think higher velocities are developed within a given maximum pressure by increasing the area under the pressure/time-travel curve. This is done by using a larger volume of a slower (deterred) powder, by using a progressive rate powder, or both. I think of a progressive rate powder as one that starts out with a slower burn rate but which converts to gas at a higher rate further into the combustion. Progressivity is achieved either by granule shape like a perforated cylinder the surface area of which increases as it burns and the perforation expands, or by burning through a deterrent coating on a spherical ball where the core has a higher energy density. Because these qualities aren't isolated from other powder characteristics, I could be mistaken in practice, but I developed a suspicion that slow, degressive powders are likely to fill my case and get compressed before they deliver the highest velocities. Given a higher case volume, like Valkyrie, Nosler, 22-250, etc., they may be the way to go, but with 223 Remington, my unleaded bullets would be pushing up against the rule I've been given not to compress. Therefore, I am favoring more progressive powders. I believe Hornady does the same with their factory loading for the 55 grain CX which they market in their "Superperformance" line where that line touts progressive powders like "Superperformance" powder -- though it is doubtful the powder by that particular name is featured in the 223 Remington or 5.56 NATO cartridges. I don't know what they do use. I don't even know if it is worth trying to duplicate since I've never used it. I could try what I believe are more progressive powders in an appropriate burn-rate range. Those would be A2230 or A2460. It should be noted that progressive powders are not a new thing. They go back at least as far as nitroglycerin. Red Dot and Ball-C are notably progressive.
I've dismissed the long-stick extruded powders since I want to meter by volume with my Harrel's measure. I don't want to weigh every charge for a Mini-14. There are some short-stick powders I have considered like the already mentioned LT-32 and 8208. H322, 2015 and Benchmark are others. Those first three are related at least by history, all wannabe T-32 or whatever someone thought was an improvement on it. 2015 is supposed to be a slower-rate version of LT-32 that shares its geometry, allowing them to be blended. Based on multiple data sources, it still falls short of the velocity I think would serve me best.
The slower single-base extruded powders (Varget, 4064, N140) are likely to have too low energy density to get the velocity I want in the confines of an uncompressed load. The 4895's are about right, but won't flow through my measure as well as ball.
So my current thinking is to try the H335 that I already have and then maybe gamble on A2460 to see if I can get any better result.
Die Bushing
I received the dies and other tools and tested the .243 SAC bushing I ordered on the fired LC brass. My loaded necks were .246 and I believe the LC brass averages around 11 or 12 thou (.246 minus .224 equals .022 divided by 2 neck walls is .011) hence why I ordered .243" because I wanted an ID 3 thou less than my loaded cartridge. That way the expander ball would pull the ID back out 1 thou, and I'd have 2 thou of neck tension. My necks were .255" OD after firing. I have had bushings size brass down smaller than the bushing diameter (opposite of spring-back) when sizing down very far, and I have had to size down using incrementally smaller bushings. Thankfully, the .243" SAC bushing sized the necks down to .243" with no expander in the die. I installed the carbide button, and the necks came out .244" -- perfect -- no collection of bushings for me.
Lee Deluxe APP
I reluctantly ordered a Lee ACP back in February. I suspected it would be unsatisfying. I had been considering it for more than a year. The video by F-Class John convinced me it could work -- with a few fixes like the carboard flap thing taped on -- you know, like you expect from Lee. My ACP was a colossal failure. I'm not even going to get into it because it's moot now. Lee discontinued it. They offered me the Deluxe APP at a discount. I did say that when I was buying the ACP that I would have gladly paid twice as much for the machine if it worked. So that's what I did. The Deluxe APP seems to be working. It's not fool-proof -- it'll double-feed primers if the cases stop flowing, and it can fail to eject cases if the handle stroke is not consistent. But I can deal with a little jiggling. Even though I got the APP, I didn't get the primer pocket swager for it. Instead, I bought the Lee die that does it on the regular press. I have a very sturdy press and stand I think I'll prefer for swaging.
I might pause this project for a while because I've probably got to get a gas bushing. I'm going to put together a sling for the rifle and do some other things. I'll get back to reloading when I have some brass piled up.
Last edited:
N555
Member
I have tried to make accurate mini14 loads using leverevolution that's like cfe223 but burns burns dirtier, A2520, 748 and you will see about typically mini14 accuracy unless you chop the barrel way down into SBR territory. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that an accurate full power mini14 load especially using those powders or powders like those is a waste of time in a full length gun.
That's one of the reasons my mini14 barely saw the light of day from about 2010 through 2022.
If you want really hot and accurate 5.56 rounds try 69gr rmr hollow point and abut a max load of cfe223 in a rifle length AR15.
My top AR15 load is a 69gr rmr hpbt with 26gr of leverevolution and a magnum primer. It spits out those bullets at about 2,950fps shoots about 2.5 inches at 100yd with A2 sights and "cheap milspec trigger", I'm sure it would do better with a scoped gun and good trigger.
* absolutely do not use in a 223rem chamber and work it up. 27gr produces over pressure signs every shot.
That's one of the reasons my mini14 barely saw the light of day from about 2010 through 2022.
If you want really hot and accurate 5.56 rounds try 69gr rmr hollow point and abut a max load of cfe223 in a rifle length AR15.
My top AR15 load is a 69gr rmr hpbt with 26gr of leverevolution and a magnum primer. It spits out those bullets at about 2,950fps shoots about 2.5 inches at 100yd with A2 sights and "cheap milspec trigger", I'm sure it would do better with a scoped gun and good trigger.
* absolutely do not use in a 223rem chamber and work it up. 27gr produces over pressure signs every shot.
Last edited:
Riomouse911
Member
All I can say about reloading for a Mini-14 is I hope you can set up a screen to catch ejected cases. If not it’s a lot of one-and-done as the cases get lost easy. (All the ones I shot at work, and my two Mini-14’s at home, launch fired cases into low earth orbit. 
)
Stay safe.
)Stay safe.
Ritchie
Member
I had good results in an early Mini using Hornady 60 grain soft points and 748. The nose profile reduces the jump to rifling while staying at magazine length. Less than 2 minutes.
Dudedog
Contributing Member
(All the ones I shot at work, and my two Mini-14’s at home, launch fired cases into low earth orbit.
Yep, nice positive ejection......
Was on the range shooting mine, and noticed opps, it is throwing the cases at the guys 2 stations down from me, I moved to another station farther away from them....
I reload .223/5.56 for two Mini-14s, two AR-15s and a Savage Axis that are shot by myself, my wife, and my two sons.
My concern has always been to formulate loads that will consistently deliver hits within the accuracy of the shooter regardless of the components used.
It took more than 20 years, but I largely achieved that goal.
I don't find the Mini-14 (I have 181 and 182 series) any more difficult to load for than the AR-15. My challenge has always been accommodating the varying skill sets of my relatives. My wife and I are 4 MOA shooters. One son is a 12 MOA shooter and the other can match his great-grandmother in 1 MOA territory.
Do your best to deliver consistent rounds and let the shooter get used to what you can deliver.
My concern has always been to formulate loads that will consistently deliver hits within the accuracy of the shooter regardless of the components used.
It took more than 20 years, but I largely achieved that goal.
I don't find the Mini-14 (I have 181 and 182 series) any more difficult to load for than the AR-15. My challenge has always been accommodating the varying skill sets of my relatives. My wife and I are 4 MOA shooters. One son is a 12 MOA shooter and the other can match his great-grandmother in 1 MOA territory.
Do your best to deliver consistent rounds and let the shooter get used to what you can deliver.
CoalCrackerAl
Member
Do you use the small base sizing die for your mini?
CoalCrackerAl
Member
I currently use a RCBS standard too.
N555
Member
Mine would chamber a no-go gauge with room to spare.
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,613
I'm starting to pick this project up again. I mentioned in post #28 that I would put this on hold for a while and so I had. I got the Mini out today and fired some of the LC ammo I bought when it was cheaper. Since I had it out last, I made the sling I mentioned in my last post. I have also installed the smaller gas bushing. I put the 0.050" bushing in to try first. I also added a piece of velcro loop on the corner of the bolt handle (per post #13). Besides that, I had always been using a rubber shock buffer. I'm still using the factory guide spring.
Magazine Springs
I replaced the springs in all my Pro Mag magazines with Wolff extra-power springs. I did not see if there would be any problem with the Pro Mag springs, I just replaced them. Comparing the Wolff springs to Ruger, I found they have the same number of coils, but the Wolff springs are one thou thicker. The Pro Mag springs are two thou thinner than the Wolff and they have one less coil than either the Ruger or Wolff springs. I've read that if the magazine spring pushes the cartridge against the magazine lips with too much force, a stronger guide spring may be necessary to strip the rounds off the magazine top. I only fired 20 rounds today, but I had no problems.
Gas Bushing
With the 0.050" gas bushing and still the rubber shock buffer, ejection seemed to be tamed little. The cases were flying about 15 feet -- the same as before. The rifle still dented every single case it ejected, but the dents were shallower on many of the cases. I think I'll skip the 0.450" bushing and try the 0.040" or 0.035".
Powder
The LC ammo I'm shooting is Winchester-branded, the white boxes labeled 3180 fps vs. the hotter 3270. I already mentioned that I'm getting about 3050 fps out of the 16.5" barrel. I have a couple pounds of H335, but I was contemplating something different the last time I was considering this. To save money, I'd like to get 8 pounds which would suffice for all the bullets I have and expect to use for more than a year, but I'm doubtful I can make up my mind about which powder. I'm tempted by the allure of published velocities for the slower powders like CFE223, but wary that they seem to be preferred for heavier bullets. All my loads will be 55 gr. I received advice in this thread to go for the faster burning powders like H322 or LT32, even RL7. Velocity or potential accuracy? Another consideration is that I probably want it to stay useable with factory M193. I don't want the gas system to be way off or the trajectory to have a vertical difference of 500 fps. With a cartridge like 223, there must be more than a dozen powders that will work. My dilemma isn't so much which particular one, but whether I should be on either far end of the spectrum for burn rate or somewhere in the middle.
Bullets
I'll be using 55 gr. Hornady CX bullets. I got a lot of them as seconds. Besides that, I'll be using 55 gr. FMJ M193-type bullets because they're the most affordable. Here's my reasoning: with 1:9 twist, I cannot use the >69gr. bullets. The 62 and 69 grain bullets might stabilize in this barrel, but this weight range typically lacks terminal performance simply due to bullet design if nothing else. For example, the M855 doesn't perform and the 69 grain bullets are typically OTM. 55 grain FMJ are widely regarded as having better terminal performance until we start talking bullets like the 77 gr. SMK/MK262. There are costlier expanding bullets of both 55 gr. and 62 gr. that will work in the 1:9 barrel, but I happened to score 55 grain and that should work beautifully with the abundance of cheap M193 projectiles and factory ammo.
Data
There is no data for CX bullets, but the data for the GMX should work as the primary difference is the aero profile of the groove. Besides that, I can adapt data for Barnes TTSX/Tac-X. Hornady, Hodgdon, and Barnes data shows CFE223, AA2520, BL-C(2), StaBall Match and Power Pro Varmint having the highest velocities. Barnes indicates H335 as the recommended powder for the 55 gr. TAC-X, but otherwise, there are no specific recommendations or indications of accuracy or SD/ES.
Nosler provides load data for the 55 grain e-Tip but doesn't distinguish it from any other 55 grain bullet except with a note warning to begin with starting loads. They indicate H335 as the most accurate powder tested, but again this is for any of their 55 grain bullets. They report the highest velocities with Benchmark and CFE223 and notably test Varget which is probably just not dense enough for this small case.
One other potential source of data is Lehigh, for their 55 gr. Controlled Chaos. It has a similar length. However, Lehigh seems to have wacky load data. For example, their starting load for one cartridge is several tenths of a grain higher than Hodgdon's max load for the same Xtreme Defense bullet, and their max load is 20% higher than Hodgdon's for a powder like TiteGroup! Now specifically for the .223, they show wacky stuff like the max load for LT32 has a higher velocity than a max load for CFE223. It just doesn't add up or check out.
I hope to get out with a smaller gas bushing and the LC M193 soon. I'm waiting at least until the end of this week to see if I can get a better deal on brass.
Magazine Springs
I replaced the springs in all my Pro Mag magazines with Wolff extra-power springs. I did not see if there would be any problem with the Pro Mag springs, I just replaced them. Comparing the Wolff springs to Ruger, I found they have the same number of coils, but the Wolff springs are one thou thicker. The Pro Mag springs are two thou thinner than the Wolff and they have one less coil than either the Ruger or Wolff springs. I've read that if the magazine spring pushes the cartridge against the magazine lips with too much force, a stronger guide spring may be necessary to strip the rounds off the magazine top. I only fired 20 rounds today, but I had no problems.
Gas Bushing
With the 0.050" gas bushing and still the rubber shock buffer, ejection seemed to be tamed little. The cases were flying about 15 feet -- the same as before. The rifle still dented every single case it ejected, but the dents were shallower on many of the cases. I think I'll skip the 0.450" bushing and try the 0.040" or 0.035".
Powder
The LC ammo I'm shooting is Winchester-branded, the white boxes labeled 3180 fps vs. the hotter 3270. I already mentioned that I'm getting about 3050 fps out of the 16.5" barrel. I have a couple pounds of H335, but I was contemplating something different the last time I was considering this. To save money, I'd like to get 8 pounds which would suffice for all the bullets I have and expect to use for more than a year, but I'm doubtful I can make up my mind about which powder. I'm tempted by the allure of published velocities for the slower powders like CFE223, but wary that they seem to be preferred for heavier bullets. All my loads will be 55 gr. I received advice in this thread to go for the faster burning powders like H322 or LT32, even RL7. Velocity or potential accuracy? Another consideration is that I probably want it to stay useable with factory M193. I don't want the gas system to be way off or the trajectory to have a vertical difference of 500 fps. With a cartridge like 223, there must be more than a dozen powders that will work. My dilemma isn't so much which particular one, but whether I should be on either far end of the spectrum for burn rate or somewhere in the middle.
Bullets
I'll be using 55 gr. Hornady CX bullets. I got a lot of them as seconds. Besides that, I'll be using 55 gr. FMJ M193-type bullets because they're the most affordable. Here's my reasoning: with 1:9 twist, I cannot use the >69gr. bullets. The 62 and 69 grain bullets might stabilize in this barrel, but this weight range typically lacks terminal performance simply due to bullet design if nothing else. For example, the M855 doesn't perform and the 69 grain bullets are typically OTM. 55 grain FMJ are widely regarded as having better terminal performance until we start talking bullets like the 77 gr. SMK/MK262. There are costlier expanding bullets of both 55 gr. and 62 gr. that will work in the 1:9 barrel, but I happened to score 55 grain and that should work beautifully with the abundance of cheap M193 projectiles and factory ammo.
Data
There is no data for CX bullets, but the data for the GMX should work as the primary difference is the aero profile of the groove. Besides that, I can adapt data for Barnes TTSX/Tac-X. Hornady, Hodgdon, and Barnes data shows CFE223, AA2520, BL-C(2), StaBall Match and Power Pro Varmint having the highest velocities. Barnes indicates H335 as the recommended powder for the 55 gr. TAC-X, but otherwise, there are no specific recommendations or indications of accuracy or SD/ES.
Nosler provides load data for the 55 grain e-Tip but doesn't distinguish it from any other 55 grain bullet except with a note warning to begin with starting loads. They indicate H335 as the most accurate powder tested, but again this is for any of their 55 grain bullets. They report the highest velocities with Benchmark and CFE223 and notably test Varget which is probably just not dense enough for this small case.
One other potential source of data is Lehigh, for their 55 gr. Controlled Chaos. It has a similar length. However, Lehigh seems to have wacky load data. For example, their starting load for one cartridge is several tenths of a grain higher than Hodgdon's max load for the same Xtreme Defense bullet, and their max load is 20% higher than Hodgdon's for a powder like TiteGroup! Now specifically for the .223, they show wacky stuff like the max load for LT32 has a higher velocity than a max load for CFE223. It just doesn't add up or check out.
I hope to get out with a smaller gas bushing and the LC M193 soon. I'm waiting at least until the end of this week to see if I can get a better deal on brass.
ballman6711
Member
That Lehigh bullet is all copper, and as such will have different load data from a lead bullet, even a copper jacketed one.
And I like IMR 3031 under my 55gr bullets, and it doe's well under a 62gr bullet as well. Lot's of powder choices for the .223, and most will work well enough.
chris
CoalCrackerAl
Member
When i had the 0.040 in. The brass that ejected fell next to me. Then some times i had to eject it with the bolt handle. I settled for the .045 one. They eject about 8 feet.
N555
Member
I use 69gr bullets in a 1:9 barrel and with a silencer and have no problems.
If you want consistency in a mini14 you are going to have to cut your losses and just stick with a powder that's a bit faster like H322 using 55gr or 62gr bullets.
If you want consistency in a mini14 you are going to have to cut your losses and just stick with a powder that's a bit faster like H322 using 55gr or 62gr bullets.
Last edited:
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,613
Correct. I am loading for the Hornady CX which is also all-copper.
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,613
There is no issue with 69 grains in a 1:9 twist. The issue is with available 69 grain bullet's terminal performance.
N555
Member
I think I missed something. How do you figure that?
There are 69gr hunting bullets available for as low as 15 cents each.
But I wouldn't recommend anything over about 60gr for mini14.
If you load up full power ammo for your mini14 to with cfe223 it's going to shoot all over the place.
You will want your smallest gas bushings with those cfe223 loads, probably the 40 thousands.
Cfe223 works great in bolt action guns and AR15a2 style guns.
What good is "terminal performance" if you can't hit anything?
Also I have loaded solid copper bullets and the load data runs them quite a bit hotter than traditional jacked bullets.
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,613
This made me think of what the port pressure is with the WWB ammo. I measured it to have 28.1 grains of WC844. I calculated that as having a port pressure of about 19kpsi. The interesting thing is that no other powder has as high port pressure with an uncompressed load and within the same pmax. What this means practically is that I could not expect the gas system to work consistently between M193 and something with thousands less psi at the port. I'd need one of those adjustable gas blocks. I'm more inclined to select a powder with a port pressure closer to M193.
| Propellant | % Filling | psi |
| Hodgdon H335 | 99.5 | 19076 |
| Winchester 748 | 100 | 18564 |
| Alliant Reloder-10x *C | 100 | 18102 |
| Accurate 2200 | 97.1 | 18080 |
| Accurate 2230 | 100 | 17923 |
| Alliant AR-Comp *C *T | 100 | 17918 |
| Hodgdon H322 | 100 | 17828 |
| Hodgdon BL-C2 | 100 | 17791 |
| Vihtavuori N530 *C | 100 | 17691 |
| Alliant Reloder-7 | 97 | 17615 |
| Alliant Reloder-12 | 100 | 17327 |
| Ramshot X-Terminator *C | 100 | 17326 |
| Accurate 2015 | 100 | 17322 |
| Ramshot Wild Boar | 100 | 17303 |
| Hodgdon H4895 | 100 | 17121 |
| IMR 8208 XBR | 100 | 16990 |
| IMR 3031 | 100 | 16914 |
| Hodgdon Benchmark | 100 | 16714 |
| Ramshot TAC *C | 100 | 16696 |
| IMR 4895 | 100 | 16574 |
| Vihtavuori N130 *C | 100 | 16565 |
| Ramshot Big Game | 100 | 16104 |
| Alliant Reloder-15 *C | 100 | 16090 |
| Vihtavuori N540 *C | 100 | 16085 |
| Hodgdon CFE223 *C | 100 | 16055 |
| Vihtavuori N140 *C | 100 | 15829 |
| Vihtavuori N133 *C | 100 | 15460 |
| IMR 4320 | 100 | 15106 |
| Hodgdon VARGET *T | 100 | 14820 |
| IMR 4064 | 100 | 14646 |
| Vihtavuori N135 *C | 100 | 14637 |
| IMR 4166 Enduron *C*T | 100 | 13868 |
| IMR 4451 Enduron *C*T | 100 | 13758 |
| Accurate 2700 | 100 | 13427 |
| Vihtavuori N150 *C | 100 | 13111 |
| IMR 4350 | 100 | 12406 |
| Hodgdon H4350 *T | 100 | 11946 |
CoalCrackerAl
Member
Nice data. I load mine with TAC. It's the most accurate with it. I load middle of the road.
GW Staar
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,721
Me too.....but I gave my son his choice of all the rifles I had, when he got married. And guess what he chose..... I had one of the old ones....he still loves to shoot it. With all it's flaws, it's fun and it's pretty, and it out shoots the Russian AK's at least. This thread needs at least one picture......
Wildbillz
Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,024
Brother if I was getting groups like that with standard ammo I would call it good. I have had several Mini's over the years and maybe two would hold a paper plate size pattern at 100 yards. Those were the good ones. Only one I have now is an old GB for the cool factor.
Reload wise I have used AA2230 and Win 748 with 55grn Fmj or 62grn Fmj. I have had good results with both (not so much from a Mini but a AR). All with mixed brass.
Best of luck
WB
AJC1
Member
I'm running 23 grains r-10× with a 55 and the gun has no function issues. It's not compressed.
N555
Member
As I expected, it looks like 10x runs a lot like H322.
