Requesting More Feedback on Load Data for 223

[Ironwill1406]

Hi All,

Last post I listed my 10 shot average data for 9mm with 115, 124 and 147 grain. The 115’s were a little light so I just retested and am happy to say that I’ve found a sweet spot with the recipe, Xtreme copper plated, 115 grain, 1.1 COL, and 5.7 grains of CFE pistol. Woot!

However...

While I was at the range, I tested my first reload batch of 223. I’m very light. Here’s the data, and any feedback would be most welcome:

Powder - CFE 223, 26 grain load
Bullet - Hornady FMJBT 55 grain
COL 2.2

I’m using Hogdon Load Data for 55 grain SPR SP
Hogdon Data gives a range of:
26 grains - fps 3133
27.8 grains - fps 3329

My 10 shot average was 2418.
2467, 2375, 2465, 2482, 2454, 2304, 2362, 2371, 2426, 2475

My comparable was 3133 per hodgon data and I’m at 2418.

Pretty darn far off what I was expecting. Any ideas?

 

[ericuda]

What are barrel lengths of yours vs tested. Seems way off though.

Maybe odd question but how far from chronograph. Your numbers are consistent though.

Do you have any factory ammo to chrono?

 

[AJC1]

Barrel length and atmospheric bothers effect speed. Your not even in the same ballpark some major factor is very different

 

[gifbohane]

I believe that the "barrel" lengths used by Hodgdon were above 26 inches. You could check it.

I got similar FPS to yours with 24.5 grains of H335.

 

[NMexJim]

So FWIW, I have fresh Hornady data (on internet subscription) for a 55 grain FMJBT that's a little different than Hodgdon. Bullet item # 2267. CFE223 26.1 grain shows 3000 fps. 27.4 shows max at 3200. SP item #2265 shows same data w/ same COL and SD. Not much different but every little bit counts. Your data from Hogdon is correct.

What type of Chrono? Guaranteed accuracy? Did you need a sky screen? How far from the muzzle is the chrono? And, last but far from least and not meant to be insulting, did you have the directions in one hand the entire time?

 

[Ironwill1406]

Thanks for the comments so far.

Chrono was a Pro DLX. I did read the instructions. Have tested 9mm accurately. I was standing, per the instructions, further back for rifle testing. About 12 feet away from chrono. Chrono on a tripod. Overcast day, no light diffusers used. I tested 9mm like one minute before my 223 rounds and found data to be accurate. Shots were consistent across all 10 shots. I was also using the same ammo to do some plinking after. Free hand hitting an 8 inch target consistently at 50 yards.

The barrel length question appears to be the most intrigue in given that I know how to use the chrono, was the right distance away, and light conditions were good.

I am shooting a 12.5” inch barrel. I never considered this to be a factor. So what do you make of that?

Hogdon data references a 24 inch barrel. I just did a bit of research and it looks like you can subtract about 50 fps per inch. So I’m shooting a 12.5” barrel which would be about 12 inches less or a reduction in 600 fps...and given my average is just about 600 fps less than expected....vavoom! This makes a hell of a lot more sense.

 

[Ironwill1406]

So FWIW, I have fresh Hornady data (on internet subscription) for a 55 grain FMJBT that's a little different than Hodgdon. Bullet item # 2267. CFE223 26.1 grain shows 3000 fps. 27.4 shows max at 3200. SP item #2265 shows same data w/ same COL and SD. Not much different but every little bit counts. Your data from Hogdon is correct.

What type of Chrono? Guaranteed accuracy? Did you need a sky screen? How far from the muzzle is the chrono? And, last but far from least and not meant to be insulting, did you have the directions in one hand the entire time?

Not sure what you mean about “directions in hand the entire time?” But no, I was shooting perfectly over the chrono.

 

[HowieG]

Hornady gathered their rifle data using a 26 inch 1 in 12 twist Remington Model 700. The used Winchester Small Rifle primers and a COL of 2.2" with your bullet. 26.1 grains of CFE223 gave them 3000 fps out of that set up.

Your 12.5 inch barrel is 13.5 inches shorter.

Hornady gathered their HANDGUN data for that bullet using a 14 inch barreled Contender, but they didn't use CFE223 for that data.

FYI, EVERYTHING makes a difference. Change one variable from the loading manual data and your results may be different. Shoot in different weather and your results may be different. Use the same model of rifle as the book and your results may STILL be different. Rifles, or handguns, are never perfectly identical.

 

[HowieG]

Just a thought. Out of that short barrel, you might be better off using a faster burning powder along the lines of H335 or IMR4895. CFE223 is fairly slow burning and is more suited to longer barrels.

 

[NMexJim]

Not sure what you mean about “directions in hand the entire time?” But no, I was shooting perfectly over the chrono.

I was referring to the chrono directions, but you nailed it.

As to barrel length and velocity loss, maybe read these articles specific to the .223 if you haven't already.

223 Remington/5.56 NATO, velocity versus barrel length: A man, his chop box and his friend’s rifle – rifleshooter.com
.223 Rem Barrel Cut-Down Test — Velocity Loss by the Inch « Daily Bulletin (accurateshooter.com) summarizes that 25.3 fps were lost per 1" of barrel loss.

As Howie said - everything makes a difference.

I think H335 is not a bad suggestion. You might get a little more pressure/velocity in that short barrel. H322 is a tad faster yet as is IMR 4198.

 

[HowieG]

I was referring to the chrono directions, but you nailed it.

As to barrel length and velocity loss, maybe read these articles specific to the .223 if you haven't already.

223 Remington/5.56 NATO, velocity versus barrel length: A man, his chop box and his friend’s rifle – rifleshooter.com
.223 Rem Barrel Cut-Down Test — Velocity Loss by the Inch « Daily Bulletin (accurateshooter.com) summarizes that 25.3 fps were lost per 1" of barrel loss.

As Howie said - everything makes a difference.

I think H335 is not a bad suggestion. You might get a little more pressure/velocity in that short barrel. H322 is a tad faster yet as is IMR 4198.

At the very least, it takes less powder. Always a good thing this day and age.

 

[Ironwill1406]

Just a thought. Out of that short barrel, you might be better off using a faster burning powder along the lines of H335 or IMR4895. CFE223 is fairly slow burning and is more suited to longer barrels.

Good call. I did stock up on H335 so I have about as much of that as I do CFE 223. So I’ll whip up some of them and test it out. Thanks!

 

[kcofohio]

I was referring to the chrono directions, but you nailed it.

As to barrel length and velocity loss, maybe read these articles specific to the .223 if you haven't already.

223 Remington/5.56 NATO, velocity versus barrel length: A man, his chop box and his friend’s rifle – rifleshooter.com
.223 Rem Barrel Cut-Down Test — Velocity Loss by the Inch « Daily Bulletin (accurateshooter.com) summarizes that 25.3 fps were lost per 1" of barrel loss.

As Howie said - everything makes a difference.

I think H335 is not a bad suggestion. You might get a little more pressure/velocity in that short barrel. H322 is a tad faster yet as is IMR 4198.

Here is another sample of barrel length testing, from 18", down to 3".
http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/223rifle.html

 

[AJC1]

Good call. I did stock up on H335 so I have about as much of that as I do CFE 223. So I’ll whip up some of them and test it out. Thanks!

You may get a lot less muzzle flash using a faster powder if that has any implications in what your doing. A 55 is mid range in bullet weight and does not benefit as much as an 80 that I load from the slower powders.