View Full Version : what velocity you get from 75g 223 in 16" barrel?
curious what you're getting.
i'm near max load, which is supposed to be 2900+ and my chrono today showed 2500 average, which is less than the starting load is supposed to give.
granted, i'm sure the manual wasn't testing with a 16" barrel, but still, i think i'm getting shorted at least 200 fps
Most tests are used with a 24" barrel, so it's very feasible that you are 200FPS slower compared to a barrel 8" longer.
That said, you should tell us what powder, primers and seating depth you're using. I'm getting a little over 2400FPS with Hornady 75gr OTMs out of my 10.5" so you should be able to speed yours up with the right combo.
I chronographed two 75 grain Hornady loads last weekend. Both with 23.6 grains Varget, but different primers, using a 16" Noveske N4 Light. 10 shots each.
Using Fed 205 primers that have been on my top shelf for ~10 - 15 years they averaged 2,412 fps with a very low SD.
Same load using new Rem 7 1/2s averaged 2,466 fps. SD was so-so, but this load performed well at 400 meters on a 12" plate and showed good potential at 500M.
I've since bumped the load it a little and loaded enough to test, but have not tried them yet. (Max load per the Hornday manual using a 20" Colt barrel is 23.5 gr Varget at 2,600 fps.)
It depends on the brass capacity, but the Hornady manual seems a little conservative. I have run 25 grains of Varget under the 75 gr. Hornady and clocked 2590-2617 ft/sec. This was listed as maximum in that particular reloading manual. I have since reduced the charge weight to 24 grs. because the 75 gr. Hornady was compressing the powder too much for my liking. I haven't chronoed it yet, but I expect mid 2500 ft/sec. velocity from a 16 inch Colt.
What about RL 15? Manuals indicate it pushes the Hornady 75 about 100 fps faster. For my purposes a 100 fps gain would be a good thing if the accuracy stays good.
my exact load is 24.8g of Accurate Data Powder 74 and I'm using the 75g bulk bullets that wideners.com sells. cci 400 primers, and 4x fired RP headstamp brass. Seated barely to magazine length for PMAGs
I'm using the DP74 http://www.accuratepowder.com/data/Data%20Powder%2074.pdf
because i bought a ton of it around $69/8lb a few years back, and being a ball powder, it meters great.
my purpose is finding a load i can make thousands of cheaply, and accurate enough to reliably hit 10" steel plate at 600 yrds from a carbine. something like a DMR load.
Considering the pills are about 10 cents each, powder is 3 cents, primers are 1.5 cents, and i only missed steel once today out of 27 rnds, I'm happy with a 15 cent round.
for today, i actually bumped the load to 25.2 grains, which is the listed max, but i didn't chrono today.
thanks for the replies all. glad to know it's not just me.
Most accurate load I found with 75gr Hornady OTMs and Varget was 24.0gr of powder. Any more and the groups opened up. I didn't chrono it, wish I had. I wouldn't expect it to break 2500fps out of a 16" barrel though.
My 16" shoots H4895 the fastest. RL 15 was the most accurate, but not by much.
Data is - MAX - from the 7th Hornady. WCC brass, CCI400, 2.250"
16" DPMS 1:9 non-chrome.
23.3gr H4895 2580 fps 22sd
24.1gr RL15 2520fps 15sd
23.5gr Varget 2490fps 19sd
My 14.5" Noveske 1:7
23.3 H4895 2514fps
24.1 RL15 2366fps
23.5 Varget 2422 fps
disclaimer: If you try any of these loads, there's a good chance you'll blow up your gun and etc., etc., etc.
Anyone trying w748, BLC2, or WC846 with 75/77 grain bullets? I have a bunch of WC846 (and 844 for lighter weights of bullets) and am loading up 55 grain now but want to load up a bunch of 875 grain wideners bulk (PRVI) and some Sierra 77 SMK/cannelure as well.
Anyone trying w748, BLC2, or WC846 with 75/77 grain bullets? I have a bunch of WC846 (and 844 for lighter weights of bullets) and am loading up 55 grain now but want to load up a bunch of 875 grain wideners bulk (PRVI) and some Sierra 77 SMK/cannelure as well.
I have data from my 20" with BL-C(2)
BL-C(2) 75gr Hornady BTHP 25.2gr COL 2.250" LC brass CCI400 Ave 2758 High 2795 Low 2737 ES 58 SD 20
It was about 100fps faster than H4895 but it shot so poorly that I didn't even try it in my 16" or 14.5" guns. I would assume it would be ~100fps in the shorter guns too. It was 2.5"+ groups at 100 yards when the other powders were around 1", which is pretty good for this gun.
I've loaded up to 68gr with W748 but haven't gone heavier.
HelloLarry
03-12-10, 14:24
I think it's nuttier than squirrel turds trying to get 2,700+ fps out of a 16" barrel and 75gr or heavier bullets.
My 16" shoots H4895 the fastest. RL 15 was the most accurate, but not by much.
Data is - MAX - from the 7th Hornady. WCC brass, CCI400, 2.250"
16" DPMS 1:9 non-chrome.
23.3gr H4895 2580 fps 22sd
24.1gr RL15 2520fps 15sd
23.5gr Varget 2490fps 19sd
My 14.5" Noveske 1:7
23.3 H4895 2514fps
24.1 RL15 2366fps
23.5 Varget 2422 fps
disclaimer: If you try any of these loads, there's a good chance you'll blow up your gun and etc., etc., etc.
Interesting that your 16" Bbl RL15 load only ran 30 fps faster compared to the Varget load (both at max load per the Hornady manual). Thanks for the heads up.The Hornady Manual recipes were using a 20" Colt barrel, so the RL15 may lose more as barrel length decreases?
I bumped my Varget/75gr Hornady OTM load load up to 24.1 grains today - this is 0.6 grains over book maximum - at least according to Hornady, so don't try without "working-up". I again tried two different primers and both averaged a little over 2,500 fps out of a 16" Noveske CL/Mid-Gas barrel.
The load using Rem 7 1/2 primers averaged 2,520 fps (and performed great at 500 Meters), despite a horrible SD. This may not be a good batch of primers.
The load using my old stock Fed205 primers averaged 2,508 fps and continues to have an excellent SD (12.7), but I only had enough to run over the chronograph.
I loaded some 77gr SMK's with TAC.
18" Noveske 1/7 60 degrees averaged 2675fps
16" Colt 1/7 60 degrees averaged 2573fps
I ran these in a Kreiger 17" RECCE with a 1/8 twist and match chamber in 90 degrees averaged 2726fps.
TWR - mind sharing your load data on TAC?
As always work up...
Rem case
Fed205M primer
24 gr TAC
77 gr SMK
2.260" OAL
Very accurate, low SD.
Need to add, this is still under what Black Hills MK262 Mod 1 ammo is loaded to.
I have seen a report of over 2750fps in an 18" barrel in 30 degree temps from David Fortier. I worked this load up with the 17" Kreiger with a tight chamber and backed off at pressure signs. The same load showed no pressure signs in a Colt NATO chamber but keeping the ammo for all my guns I chose the safe load for all.
When Temps warm up I will start over since I no longer own the 17" Kreiger but I have 500 rounds loaded and ain't pulling bullets, besides it's accurate and plenty fast enough for now.
I would like to chrono some BH MK262 Mod1 or 0 ammo and see how close I can get.
As always work up...
Rem case
Fed205M primer
24 gr TAC
77 gr SMK
2.260" OAL
Very accurate, low SD.
TWR,
Have you tried TAC with the 75 gr Hornady BTHP? I just picked up a pound to try in my 16" Noveske N4. The Hornady manual does not show a TAC load for 75 grain bullets, but they list it for the 60 grain bullets. Max load for the Hornady 60s are noticeably less than shown for the same weight bullet in the Sierra manual.
No, I haven't. Without knowing the bearing surface, you'll just have to work up to see how they do.
I'd like to know what you find.
I have a feeling Vihtavuori powder might be the answer.
Will do.
I hope TAC works as well as the Varget from a long distance accuracy standpoint. I just had my first case of bridging with Varget, so something that meters better would be welcome.
If it doesn't, then RL-15 or V.V. N-140 look to be good choices.
I think it's nuttier than squirrel turds trying to get 2,700+ fps out of a 16" barrel and 75gr or heavier bullets.
Agreed. I don't think Mk262 even reaches that out of a 16".
I hope TAC works as well as the Varget from a long distance accuracy standpoint. I just had my first case of bridging with Varget, so something that meters better would be welcome.
try whacking the powder measure a couple times before each stroke. It helps to settle the powder in.
V.V. N-140 look to be good choices.
try N-540 as well...
try whacking the powder measure a couple times before each stroke. It helps to settle the powder in.
My .223 loader is a Dillon 1050 hat I've had for almost 20 years. It bridged in the drop tube, not the bowl.
Agreed. I don't think Mk262 even reaches that out of a 16".
Molon posted on TOS, 2712 fps with a 16" barrel with MK262. As I said, I'd like to find some and chrono it for myself to use as a benchmark but for now this is it.
My .223 loader is a Dillon 1050 hat I've had for almost 20 years. It bridged in the drop tube, not the bowl.
Still try it. If you whack it it will possible break the bridging. Pull the handle down, pause, whack, let it up. Slows you down though. Do you have a powder check on it to catch this sort of thing? I assume it doesn't happen all that often.
Bridging in the powder funnel is a hard one though. Other people I have read about have polished the inside of the powder funnel as well as bored it out. Not really boring out but changing the inside slope so that it has a more tapered "throat" if you know what I mean.
It only happened the one time. Unfortunately the 1050 does not have a powder check station like the 650 does. (I use one for bottleneck cases with the 650.) Polishing the funnel is a good idea.
The Dillon powder measure is a very good system, but the somewhat coarse grain of Varget going through a .224- sized hole is asking a lot. Fortunately the case is near full with Varget so a catastrophic overcharge is not possible.
The small spherical shape of the Ramshot TAC will solve that potential problem, but I'll have to see if the accuracy holds. Varget is outstanding with the 75gr Hornady from that standpoint.
It only happened the one time. Unfortunately the 1050 does not have a powder check station like the 650 does. (I use one for bottleneck cases with the 650.) Polishing the funnel is a good idea.
The 1050 toolhead is the same as the Super 1050 toolhead according to my catalog and the Super 1050 has a station right after the powder station for a powder check. Indeed, it is the only time I have installed a powder check myself (not yet using one on my 650 but probably will)
The Dillon powder measure is a very good system, but the somewhat coarse grain of Varget going through a .224- sized hole is asking a lot. Fortunately the case is near full with Varget so a catastrophic overcharge is not possible.
Compared to a ball powder it is a coarse grain, I agree. A lot less coarse than some but still so. Polishing should help and like I said, making a longer drop off, boring it out some so the fall is less abrupt, would help too. (I have not done any of these things but have read of others doing them to overcome the small 22 caliber hole in the powder funnel)...
The small spherical shape of the Ramshot TAC will solve that potential problem, but I'll have to see if the accuracy holds. Varget is outstanding with the 75gr Hornady from that standpoint.
Please report back!
Molon posted on TOS, 2712 fps with a 16" barrel with MK262. As I said, I'd like to find some and chrono it for myself to use as a benchmark but for now this is it.
OK gotcha. However, Mk262 uses a proprietary powder not available to the general public...trying to duplicate that load MAY be possible, but don't count on your brass lasting for many reloads.
The 1050 toolhead is the same as the Super 1050 toolhead according to my catalog and the Super 1050 has a station right after the powder station for a powder check. Indeed, it is the only time I have installed a powder check myself (not yet using one on my 650 but probably will)
Yes - The 1050 has a spare die station right after the powder drop station, but it's only one hole - the Dillon powder check unit needs two holes in the tool head - one for the threaded (die size) case-check-rod fixture and a small unthreaded hole for the push rod that activates the buzzer warning device. [Unless they have a new unit that's different from the one on my .308/650 tool head.] Getting the case check rod to into a 22 cal case without hanging up might be an issue as well.
TAC is a ball powder - very similar in size, shape, and even color, to WW-748. The few "work-up" loads I have loaded thus far indicate it meters very nicely.
Yes - The 1050 has a spare die station right after the powder drop station, but it's only one hole - the Dillon powder check unit needs two holes in the tool head - one for the threaded (die size) case-check-rod fixture and a small unthreaded hole for the push rod that activates the buzzer warning device. [Unless they have a new unit that's different from the one on my .308/650 tool head.] Getting the case check rod to into a 22 cal case without hanging up might be an issue as well.
No. That station is for the powder check. You do not need a hole. The only reason you need a hole on the 650 is that the outer walls of the toolhead are much thicker and the actuating rod needs the hole. On the 1050 the outer walls of the toolhead are much thinner and you run the actuating rod outside of the toolhead. The powder check comes with a large washer that you stick on the end to be used as an actuating plate against the shellplate platform edge on the 1050. The 1050 and 650 powder checks are the same unit. That station after the powder is designed to be used for the powder check. Trust me on this. (If you look at the Blue Press the picture of the Super 1050, which is the same toolhead as the 1050) shows a powder check installed.
TAC is a ball powder - very similar in size, shape, and even color, to WW-748. The few "work-up" loads I have loaded thus far indicate it meters very nicely.
Yes, I have some TAC. It should meter nicely.
Most of my loading recently has been with WC844T which meters nicely and I use it for the blasting ammo I make on the 1050. I will be doing 75 and 77 grain ammo soon on my 650 and am interested in your results!
I'm still not quite happy with my 75gr load, but currently I'm using 23.2gr of TAC behind a Hornady 75gr projectile, getting ~2525 fps out of a 16" barrel. I've pushed them up to 100fps faster, but don't see any reason (for me) to do so.
No. That station is for the powder check. You do not need a hole. The only reason you need a hole on the 650 is that the outer walls of the toolhead are much thicker and the actuating rod needs the hole. On the 1050 the outer walls of the toolhead are much thinner and you run the actuating rod outside of the toolhead. The powder check comes with a large washer that you stick on the end to be used as an actuating plate against the shellplate platform edge on the 1050. The 1050 and 650 powder checks are the same unit. That station after the powder is designed to be used for the powder check. Trust me on this. (If you look at the Blue Press the picture of the Super 1050, which is the same toolhead as the 1050) shows a powder check installed.
Yes, I have some TAC. It should meter nicely.
Most of my loading recently has been with WC844T which meters nicely and I use it for the blasting ammo I make on the 1050. I will be doing 75 and 77 grain ammo soon on my 650 and am interested in your results!
Hmm..I see what you are saying. I located my .223 sized powder check rod, but I have no recollection about the large washer that goes on the end of the other rod. I'm still not sure it's practical due to small case mouth size on the .223, but if I end up staying with Varget I'll give Dillon a call and see what they say.
I'm still not quite happy with my 75gr load, but currently I'm using 23.2gr of TAC behind a Hornady 75gr projectile, getting ~2525 fps out of a 16" barrel. I've pushed them up to 100fps faster, but don't see any reason (for me) to do so.
boltcatch - thanks for the heads up and chronograph data. I've loaded a few with TAC at 22.5. 23.2 seems to be a logical spot for another sample.
Hmm..I see what you are saying. I located my .223 sized powder check rod, but I have no recollection about the large washer that goes on the end of the other rod. I'm still not sure it's practical due to small case mouth size on the .223, but if I end up staying with Varget I'll give Dillon a call and see what they say.
I have not had any issues with the 223 sized powder check rod. Goes in every time. This is in fact my first time actually using one.
On the 1050 there is a large flat washer with small ID hole and a couple of nuts used to lock it in place. This washer acts as a sort of flange that comes down on the edge of the lower platform to actuate the thing. The washer etc was in your original packaging. You can call Dillon about it -- at the least they will tell you what you need to set it up and may very well send you the parts.
I checked at the dillonprecision website but did not find the manual for it online like many of the manuals are.
75 GR BTHP Hornady
23.0 GR Varget
C.O.L. 2.260
Lake City Brass
CCI Primers
18IN Noveske Barrel with HTG Can
AVG. 2612 FPS
LOW 2569 FPS
HI 2636 FPS
VERY ACCURATE!
i've loaded almost 40,000 223 rnds on my super1050. every one went through the powder check. i've occasionally (MAYBE once or twice/1000, if that) had the rod hang on the case mouth and have to drop it again by hand.
i would not recommend whacking it though. it might help your bridging problem, but it will likely make all your drops less consistent.
i run only ball powders through the dillon measure.
75 GR BTHP Hornady
23.0 GR Varget
C.O.L. 2.260
Lake City Brass
CCI Primers
18IN Noveske Barrel with HTG Can
AVG. 2612 FPS
LOW 2569 FPS
HI 2636 FPS
VERY ACCURATE!
Ramrod - You just confirmed what I've read elsewhere: Velocity for an 18" Noveske is ~100 fps higher than for a 16" barrel (not sure if the 16" was SS or CL). Yours seems to be a little more than that - does a can affect velocity?
___
I'm still "working up" with TAC powder - next loads are at 23.9 - 24.0 grains under a 75gr Hornday BTHP with two different primers. I should have a feel for how TAC compares to Varget (*in my 16" barrel*) after the next trip to the range. (23.3 grains TAC shot fairly well at 500M, but I did not chronograph.)
taliv - Using ball powder in your 1050, have you ever caught a significant powder shortage or overage with the Dillon powder check system? I'm still mulling this over.
yeah, once when i was a retard and forgot to fill the hopper :o
i can't remember a time when it dropped too much or too little powder.
Ramrod - You just confirmed what I've read elsewhere: Velocity for an 18" Noveske is ~100 fps higher than for a 16" barrel (not sure if the 16" was SS or CL). Yours seems to be a little more than that - does a can affect velocity?
I tend to see ~100fps going from 16" to 20". However, stainless barrels do tend to bump velocity a bit over CL or chromoly.
I think a can might drop your velocity a little, i haven't fired it without the can. But i will try to chrono this load without the can this week, and post the results for ya. If i can get my 16in upper together in time i will chrono these loads through the 16in barrel for comparisons.
I use the Lymans 49th Edition Reloading manual
75 gr. Jacketed A-Max BC .435
2.390 OAL SD .214
Powder starting Vel.fps C.U.P Max Load Vel.fps C.U.P.
grs.
Varget 23.0 gr 2606 fps 37,2K 25.6 gr 2834 fps 48,6K
I use this data but load the 75 gr BTHP bullet instead and 2.260 oal
Thanks - it will be interesting to see the comparisons. I've been leaning in the direction of an SPR type build and this discussion has been very useful (except to my wallet).
i would not recommend whacking it though. it might help your bridging problem, but it will likely make all your drops less consistent.
It will make the drop less consistent? How so? Whacking it (not overly hard of course) helps to settle the powder which makes it a lot MORE consistent.
I have a few customers who have come up with whacking devices -- one guy had some sort of pneumatic device that whacked it a several times each load. His loads were much more consistent. Another guy had an electronic device that vibrated somewhat violently (lots of small whacks more or less) and his consistency went way up as well...
so, lots of folks say tap and other say don't.
the instructions on my harrell culver measure say "some people choose to, but we've found it doesn't help and usually hurts accuracy."
http://www.harrellsprec.com/
instructions on RCBS uniflow says a tap at the bottom helps to settle the powder. i don't dispute that. i just don't think it improves accuracy.
kinda like the age old "weight vs volume" debate
so, lots of folks say tap and other say don't.
the instructions on my harrell culver measure say "some people choose to, but we've found it doesn't help and usually hurts accuracy."
http://www.harrellsprec.com/
instructions on RCBS uniflow says a tap at the bottom helps to settle the powder. i don't dispute that. i just don't think it improves accuracy.
The deal is consistency. If you tap consistently and settle the powder, it can only be good. It may mean you have to rework your load a little bit since the same setting on the measure may change the actual weight of the powder being dropped after it is settled.
If using ball powder I would not worry about it. With extruded powders it can make things more consistent if done in a consistent way.
kinda like the age old "weight vs volume" debate
What debate is this? Powder measures measure by volume, but we talk about it as weight. If the powder does not fall evenly into the powder measure then you get inconsistent results this way. Ball powder is much more consistent due to its physical properties.
well, the question you'd have to ask is if you tap once, and it settles, and you tap twice and it settles some more, and you tap the 10th time and it settles a little more... how many times is enough or too much.
and the other question is, how do you 'tap' consistently so that it settles the same way every time. i don't really think you can. introducing the tapping strikes me as being about as precise as the old powder-dippers.
What debate is this? Powder measures measure by volume, but we talk about it as weight. If the powder does not fall evenly into the powder measure then you get inconsistent results this way. Ball powder is much more consistent due to its physical properties.
weeelll... not exactly
your premise above is based on the simple fact that two samples of a given volume of powder don't necessarily have the same mass. hence the question, what is more important? consistent volume? or consistent mass? if it's volume, then throwing the powder (sans tapping) is probably the optimal method for measuring. If it's mass, then weighing and trickling the powder is probably the optimal method.
well, the question you'd have to ask is if you tap once, and it settles, and you tap twice and it settles some more, and you tap the 10th time and it settles a little more... how many times is enough or too much.
and the other question is, how do you 'tap' consistently so that it settles the same way every time. i don't really think you can. introducing the tapping strikes me as being about as precise as the old powder-dippers.
It is not hard to tap consistently. Consistently enough at least to get more consistent drops of powder weight-wise.
Do not tap a different amount of times each time and tap the same. Get a rhythm and keep it. It really is not hard. And it is follows the law of diminishing returns. Once it gets settled pretty well more taps are not going to have as big an impact.
weeelll... not exactly
your premise above is based on the simple fact that two samples of a given volume of powder don't necessarily have the same mass.
What is volume of powder? What do you mean when you say that. If you mean the amount of powder that naturally falls into a given cavity of X volume, then yes, the premise is 100% true for extruded powders. Due to the varying of air gaps with extruded powders the weight (mass for all intents and purposes) in a cavity of a given volume will vary significantly. Enough at least to make people want to individually weigh each load.
hence the question, what is more important? consistent volume? or consistent mass? if it's volume, then throwing the powder (sans tapping) is probably the optimal method for measuring. If it's mass, then weighing and trickling the powder is probably the optimal method.
Consistent volume? What does that mean. Please define it so I know what you are speaking about.
People generally want consistency of mass so that the same amount of powder is burned each time. This is why some people weigh each load. However, that is a detriment to production capability (ie, takes more time) so people make short cuts. They use powder measures, all of which that I have seen are based on volume, and then try to make each throw of powder be as consistent as possible. Which is why various schemes to get powder to settle are invented as it leads to consistency. The tap method is not the best but it is the cheapest, being free, and if done correctly, can lead to more consistent drops. If you don't make an effort to do it well and consistently, it won't work as well. Is it a Benchrest procedure? Probably not. But those guys do lots of things that are unnecessary for most people to worry about.
Using a ball powder also mostly solves the problem. Due to the geometry of the powder granules, they fall into the cavity pretty much the same each time and don't get varying amounts of air gaps each time. Think of putting ball bearings in a jar. You will basically get the same number of BB each time. But if you dump nails into a jar, you will get a large variance in the number of nails due to the way they fall and the different air gaps that are created. Shaking the jar will help settle them and you will get a closer number of nails each time. This is like extruded powder.
Got to the range today, it was super windy.
verified my 75 gr BTHP 23.0 gr of varget load.
18in spr barrel w/can 10 shots fired each string
avg 2605fps
16in M4 barrel w/can
avg 2464fps
16in M4 barrel no can
avg 2473fps
This is what i got! your results may very.
Thanks ramrod. Great data on the can results and especially for me, the relative difference in the 18" SPR to the 16" CL.
Got to the range today, it was super windy.
verified my 75 gr BTHP 23.0 gr of varget load.
18in spr barrel w/can 10 shots fired each string
avg 2605fps
16in M4 barrel w/can
avg 2464fps
16in M4 barrel no can
avg 2473fps
This is what i got! your results may very.
And ramrod's your prior data data for easy reference:
75 GR BTHP Hornady
23.0 GR Varget
C.O.L. 2.260
Lake City Brass
CCI Primers
18IN Noveske Barrel with HTG Can
AVG. 2612 FPS
LOW 2569 FPS
HI 2636 FPS
VERY ACCURATE!
Chronograph results for 75 gr Hornady OTM; 23.5 gr Ramshot TAC; CCI #400 Primers in a Noveske N4 Light 16" Middy (CL); COL 2.255":
#1) After two fouling shots from cold clean barrel (9 over the chronograph):
Avg = 2,595 fps; H = 2,628; L = 2,564; SD = 22.4
#2) Same load, 9 shots (*after excluding 1st shot that ran 2,528):
Avg = 2,594 fps; H = 2,610; L = *2,574; SD = 13.5
*Note Avg for #2 including the first shot was 2,587 fps with a SD of 24.3
Test Load of 75gr .223 TAP (#80265) - 10 shots:
Avg = 2,535 fps; H = 2,576; L = 2,504; SD = 23.5
Brass was 2nd time reloaded IMI & TZZ, mixed years with a light taper crimp. FL sized and trimmed only - no special processing. Accuracy may not be as good as Varget, but with me on the trigger it's hard to tell. Results on steel at 500 Meters was very satisfactory and two rounds (only) at a 12" gong at 700M produced a second shot hit using a NF 2.5-10x32 NP-R2.
Relative accuracy VS the factory TAP load:
I shot one group each through the chronograph at 100 Yds with the reload and the TAP. My rest was set extra high due to the chronograph so take it for what it's worth:
Reload: Best 9 of 10 @ 2.1". TAP: Best 9 of 10 @ 1.875".
I'm still waiting on my SPR barrel so the jury is still out for this load, but it looks promising so far.
I chrono'd some 24.6 grain Varget loads w/ 75 BTHP bullet out of a 12.5" Noveske Crusader barrel, and found that it can hit some decent velocities: 2,553 fps
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.