75-77 Grain 223 testing...lots of powders.

[Unclenick]

TexS,

He’s taking the 5-shot group size, then picking out the four most closely spaced of the five holes, and then the three most closely spaced of the five holes, hoping that better represents the gun and ammunition’s performance most of the time. It is not a valid statistical method for shooter’s purposes, but the reason why is not obvious. I will explain it after I explain formatting below.


9MMand223ONLY,

Let’s start with data formatting to make your positing life easier. The system does not recognize tabs or the no-break space character and does not allow more than one space nor leading spaces on a line. Possibly, the programmers didn’t like people using lots of characters to draw pictures. I don’t know the reasoning. However, there is a workaround. If you enclose your table text in code brackets (i.e., [code] at the start, and [/code] at the end), it will all post inside a window that does allow for multiple spaces to be maintained. You can then organize your tables as text and copy and paste them between the code tags

Once you have done that, you will find a lot of stuff still doesn’t line up exactly. This is due to the difference in character spacing in most fonts, including the board’s default Verdana font. They don’t use the same amount of space for narrow characters and wide ones or spaces. To get alignment you need to use a fixed-width font. Two the board has available are Courier New, and Fixedsys. So, select all the characters inside the code brackets and use the font selector at the top left of the composition window to change to one of these fonts.

If you used tabs instead of spaces to organize your table, you may still have some crooked columns due to the number of spaces in a tab being different on the board than it was in your text editor. Just select, copy and paste a tab into any place too far to the left.

Example of your material:

 Powder     FILL   5MOA   4MOA   3MOA  Chrono1  Chrono2  Chrono3  Chrono4  Chrono5   AVG.   SD   5RANK  4RANK  3RANK  Overall
Varget     23.90  0.872  0.625  0.575  2703.00  2722.00  2728.00  2694.00  2722.00  2714  14.5   10      8     13      11
Varget     24.50  0.890  0.767  0.636  2759.00  2789.00  2764.00  2797.00  2751.00  2772  19.9   12     13     16      14
Varget     25.00  0.829  0.523  0.416  2822.00  2817.00  2806.00  2846.00  2847.00  2828  18.2    9      2      6       5
IMR4895    23.50  1.367  0.971  0.826  2743.00  2732.00  2698.00  2714.00  2723.00  2722  17.2   20     17     18      19
IMR4896    24.00  1.077  1.047  0.916  2794.00  2761.00  2800.00  2736.00  2777.00  2774  26.0   17     20     20      18
AA2460     23.50  0.946  0.678  0.500  2705.00  2703.00  2728.00  2692.00  2691.00  2704  14.9   13     10     11      12
AA2460     24.00  0.809  0.516  0.431  2743.00  2743.00  2725.00  2722.00  2720.00  2731  11.5    7      1      9       4
vvN135     23.00  1.090  0.948  0.631  2754.00  2759.00  2764.00  2771.00  2783.00  2766  11.3   18     16     15      16
vvN135     23.50  0.826  0.584  0.418  2791.00  2801.00  2809.00  2800.00  2798.00  2800   6.5    8      7      7       7
vvN140     24.00  0.799  0.798  0.595  2643.00  2655.00  2664.00  2645.00  2658.00  2653   8.9    6     14     14      13
vvN140     24.50  0.872  0.713  0.349  2722.00  2727.00  2717.00  2722.00  2736.00  2725   7.2   10     12      3       8
TAC        23.80  0.970  0.644  0.328  2736.00  2721.00  2716.00  2695.00  2723.00  2718  14.9   14      9      2       9
TAC        24.30  1.046  0.921  0.427  2777.00  2772.00  2782.00  2772.00  2790.00  2779   7.6   16     15      8      15
TAC        24.80  0.738  0.579  0.475  2842.00  2858.00  2857.00  2852.00  2840.00  2850   8.4    3      5     10       6
203B/RL15  24.30  0.738  0.560  0.246  2723.00  2708.00  2719.00  2698.00  2722.00  2714  10.7    3      4      1       1
203B/RL15  24.90  0.713  0.711  0.549  2810.00  2799.00  2811.00  2826.00  2807.00  2811   9.8    2     11     12      10
W748       23.70  0.655  0.543  0.409  2636.00  2659.00  2646.00  2646.00  2627.00  2643  12.0    1      3      5       2
W748       24.50  1.360  0.999  0.829  2757.00  2756.00  2741.00  2756.00  2746.00  2751   7.3   19     18     19      20
IMR4166    22.50  0.740  0.582  0.388  2577.00  2582.00  2574.00  2614.00  2574.00  2584  17.0    5      6      4       3
IMR4166    23.20  1.041  1.003  0.759  2567.00  2652.00  2645.00  2661.00  2628.00  2631  37.6  15     19     17      17
55  Grain  Nosler  Balistic  Silvertip
Benchmark  25.00  1.088  0.651  0.346  3135.00  3173.00  3136.00  3155.00  3146.00  3149  15.7    
69  Grain  Sierra  Match  King
Varget     25.30  0.933  0.872  0.730  2911.00  2904.00  2870.00  2917.00  2913.00  2903  19.0

The value of target statistics to the shooter is in predicting future behavior of a gun and ammunition. Your 5-shot groups do that to a +53%/-35% size range with 95% confidence. That is, 19 out of 20 future 5-shot groups with the same load are expected to stay within that range of sizes. It means there is a lot of overlap that could occur between your various groups in future firings, but at least it gives you some sense of the limitations. Only firing larger groups will narrow that overlap. The 4 and 3 shot minimum group sizes, however, do not have practical predictive value. The reason is not obvious, so I’ll demonstrate the principle by replacing your 5-shot group size with a 1000-shot group size.

The 1000-shot 2 moa group below was “fired” by Excel’s random number generator. It has what is called a bivariate normal distribution, meaning the vertical and horizontal have independent bell curves. In this case I gave both the same standard deviation of 1 moa, so the group would tend to be round. The three additional groups are the first three 3-shot groups out of the 1000 shots. That is, where the shots are numbered 1-1000, these targets are shots 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9. The center of the target is the point of aim (POA) and the yellow + is the mean POI of the 1000 shot target and the green × marks are the mean (average) points of impact (POIs) for each 3-shot group.



Note the typical sizes of the three shot groups. Now imagine I go over to the 1000 shot group and find the three holes that are closest together. Given that I put 1000 down range, it seems pretty likely I’ll find three that made a “bughole”. That is, they went through the same hole give or take a few hundredths. Now ask yourself what the size of that bughole tells you about the other three shot groups or how big the next three shot group is likely to be? Nothing useful that I can see. Picking out the most closely spaced holes is like a gambler counting only his best past throws of the dice. It says nothing about what his future throws will average. This same principle applies to picking the closest 3 or 4 from a 5 shot group. I would suggest ignoring any but the 5-shot ranking.

Finally, on powder fouling, I see what are possible signs of its influence in your data. Powder compositions are not the same. Take a look through QuickLOAD’s powder database and look at the top-most characteristic, which is the energy content per unit mass of the selected powder in kJ/kg. It ranges from about 3500 to about 5200. If the compositions of the powders were the same, that number would be the same for all. But some of your powders are single-base and some are double-base and with differing nitrocellulose to nitroglycerin ratios in the double-base ones. Some have larger amounts of deterrent than others because some depend solely on deterrent to be progressive burning (spherical powders) while some depend more on grain geometry (e.g., stick powders). Some have more stabilizer and some less. Some have more graphite and some less. The three nitrocellulose species differ in their proportions depending on the nitrating process quality and the cellulose source quality and purity. Each nitrocellulose species produces a different proportion of fouling waste.

So, how do we know if powder fouling played a role in your testing? I went back and found the velocity extreme spreads for each set of five rounds you fired. What I would expect is that some fouling would offer better lubrication due to having more graphite or being less thick, while others would do the opposite. Switching from one to the other could cause velocity ES to change. It could get better or worse or not change much, depending on how a load got along with the previous load’s fouling. That is what is in your data. Some ES’s go up by over 2:1 and some go down by over 2:1 comparing the first five to the last 5 rounds using the same type powder. One barely changes. That doesn’t prove the fouling patterns are the cause, especially with sample sizes of just 5 shots, but it is exactly what I’d expect from a changing fouling pattern.

Even at 200 meters yards, the vertical influence is not high. For your worst load, the heavier charge of 4166 that produced 94 fps ES at 2567 fps and 2661 fps, with a 77 grain SMK would see vertical dispersion of 1” or 0.44 moa. But at 600 yards it is a drop difference of 11.4” or 1.81 moa, and that’s more than enough to upset a match shooter firing at that distance. On a 200 yard target a 1” drop can stay in the X-ring. But on a 600 yard slow fire target, the 11.4” drop is the difference between a scratch X and dropping 3 points with a 7.

[9MMand223only]

Hello, thanks for teaching me how to post, I really like that trick.

I do alot of statistics, that is what I do for a living. So you might think why my method is so flawed. Its flawed in one way, and good in another. There are pros and cons.

In your example, of 1000 rounds, if that spread was 1 MOA, but 600, of the 1000 went through the same exact hole, so to be clear, its not 3, its 600. Same ratio. 2/3 of the shots. 4 shots would be 800/1000, etc. A ratio. Thats not perfect, but reasonable, and the more groups we shoot, the better it will correlate.

Lets say the 1 hole is toward the left side of the 1 MOA group, and your shooting in a variable wind from left to right. If you have a wind gauge, and you see your bullets are mostly in 1 hole, and the rest are "leaking" toward the right, in a very narrow horizontal band, then you just learned a lot. And indeed your 5, 4 and 3 groups have value.

What I am saying is you can correllate your shot patters to the conditions outside, a lot better than Excel modeling. A lot better. And the root of this correlation is where most bullets are hitting, because that is "probably" where the wind is a similar condition, etc. if all your other factors are consistent...(thats making a lot of assumptions, I know). The wind died several times, and I took several shots, and I could see through the scope, after I pulled the trigger (20x scope) the bullets hitting the same area, the size of a quarter. Then I shoot when the wind is a tiny bit active, and its spread out a little bit, but toward the right. Its predictable.

MS Excel, can do random number generation, but that is not as valuable as correlating your groups, with the wind direction, and how variable it is.

Take that N140 group for example. That group has a verticle MOA of about .2 MOA, but horizontally, the MOA is about .8 MOA. Thats 4x the MOA horizontally, versus vertically. This was shot in a variable wind from left to right. That group, even though I ranked it like 8th overall, could be the best. You see? Excel could be used to support this, if I knew the "exact" wind direction and velocity for every shot, while the bullet was in the air..etc The N140 group looks like a "string" from left to right. Very good group, very good. Excel could then "re-order" all the shots according to the wind, and give me a more true MOA. Excel is very usefull.

Also, I as you instructed, I measured and adjusted quickload based on case volume for fun, in all the lapua brass. new lapua brass. It was all similar, about 29.8 grains. Some used FC brass was 31.15, etc.

I see no strong data evidence to support fouling caused inaccuracy or inconsistency. The chrono proves this to be true. In order for this theory to pan out, it would have to behave this way consistently, it clearly does not. What the testing supports though, is what powders are made more consistent "perhaps", like the VV powders having low std dev compared to other brands. Why is that? Do you think its the fouling, or do you think that powder is just better quality controlled? We need a scientific study to support this.

Norma for example. The makers say its just a "better quality controlled" RL15. Same powder, just manufacturered to higher consistency? The results show that, indeed, this claim is supported correlatively.

On the fouling, if you look at the IMR4895, or several others, you see:

2705.00 2703.00 2728.00 2692.00 2691.00

So the first shot is 2705, then down 2, then up 25, then down 36, then down 1.

If fouling was to correllate to a good extent, it would be higher velocity as we shoot, not lower. It got lower as it shot, not higher. Same thing with several other powders. The fouling argument simply does not correlate.

When you say it could be higher, or lower, or the same, based on the powder. That sets your argument up for never losing, ever. Because I assure you, its going to be higher, lower or the same, all the time. haha? jokes! My point is, which powder does higher? Which one does lower? And which one does the same? And why, exactly? Unless we have a lab, we do not know, and unless the results are consistent, the results disprove the fouling argument, largely.

As you can also see, I shot Ballistic Silvertip, lubalox coated bullets BEFORE I shot the 69 SMK's. And look at the spread of those shots?

2911.00 2904.00 2870.00 2917.00 2913.00

if you take out the 2870, that is positively consistent. This correlates also to fouling was not a major factor at all. Take in mind, this 69 SMK, is after 9 different powders, and 1 coated bullet, went through the bore.

And look at that consistency of velocity? Its superb. Its funny too, this Varget SMK load was NOT using Lapua brand new brass, it was using 5+ reloaded brass, and it still produced good consistent shots.

But really, without a scientific study to determine the cause and affect, we will probably never know the truth of exactly why things are the way they are.

I think these are fun tests, but they don't prove a lot really. I think though, that having horizonal MOA and verticle MOA with how much variable wind, would help accurize the data, a lot.

It is interesting though. We all know RL15/203B is a TOP TOP, if not the best choice on earth for using heavy 223 bullets. I think we can agree, its a top choice. And look what powder won the war here?

I think, that if we shot indoors, in climate control, with 0 wind whatsoever, and we did this test, the results would tighten up probably 2-3X, and we would have like .2-.3 MOA on the top groups. That 203B, and the N140, and the HOT TAC load..when I was shooting in the same wind condition, almost calm, the bullets were just NAILING the same quarter. at 200 meters.

That one did. Anyway, I like the back and forth, and I appreciate you Unclenick.

I am loading preparing the other loads now. I will go back this weekend.

For years, I have not yet decided if its better to test at 200+ yards, or 100 yards, or 50 yards. I am just undecided. I like the 200+ yards, because it shows me how wind resistent a bullet is, but i like 50 yards and 100, because I can hold the rifle on a more "finite" spot, giving me better propensity for closer groups.

What do you think Unclenick?

[9MMand223only]

Ok, as I said, I got my hands on CFE223. I have to say, I don't like measuring it, its like super staticy. It sticks to everything. Massive static cling! ha?

I was also comparing all the powders I have, because this CFE223 looked like another powder I have, and sure enough, it looks almost exactly like H335. If you mixed these 2 powders together, they look the same, I can't really tell them apart. The H335 is also static cling too. Funny. The CFE223 is a good metering powder overall, like the H335. But its not a match for Accurate 2230, or Accurate 2460, or Ramshot Tac I don't think in the metering wars. ha

I think Winchester 748 meters better too, actually.

Ok, I got the rest loaded up, along with the winners from the test last week...

so its round 2, coming right up....then in 2 weeks is the grand final, for the ultimate winner.

I think it will be 203b/RL15 or N140 is my guess. I think its already pretty much establishd these 2 powders own the heavy 223 bullet category already. The 25 grain varget group is lights out too...so who knows. The problem I think with Varget, from my experience shooting 1000+ with it, is that its just not as consistent as the norma or VV powder, and that is part of the reason it is barely not as accurate, possibly. Well see.

Also, I picked up some TOP BRASS, brand new, and I will post a case measurement study, with how much grains of water, fit in different brands. That should prove interesting.

[Rimfire5]

9MMand223only,

Thanks for sharing your data.

As for the static issue with CFE:
The smaller the grain of powder, the more it seems to stick to anything, especially the sides of the sides of my ChargeMaster 1500's powder silo.
With really small single grains, gravity doesn't seem to overcome the adhesion to the surface. I also find that grains occasionally pop out of the tray when they are metering out of the ChargeMaster tube. Luckily the ones that pop out of the tray aren't weighed so the consistency of the metering remains unchanged.

H335 is a much faster powder than CFE223.
If you look close, I think you will find that CFE223 is actually a composite powder, to me there seem to be two different sized powder grains intermixed.
H335 appears to be only one powder of equally sized, very small grains. I wouldn't be surprised that CFE has H335 and something else mixed together to reduce fouling.

Either way, I have found the CFE223 to be a really good powder, especially for the heavier bullets for my 1:8 twist. It is right up there with N140 for 69 and 70 grain bullets and close for 77 grain bullets.
It also was near the top of my accuracy charts for 52 and 53 grain bullets in my CZ bolt action with a 1:9 twist.

It gives N133 and H335 a run for the top 10 spots even with light bullets.

[9MMand223only]

OK great. I bought a lot of the CFE223, because people like it so much. So I have high hopes for it.

I might shoot Friday, but this weekend, without question.

[9MMand223only]

I added some more loads to the testing, and I added a couple of 77 grain Nosler Custom Comp with CFE for testing.

One thing I noticed about the Nosler CC bullets vs the Hornady 75 Match, is that the Nosler had less deviation between weights. The Hornady were from 74.81 to 75.20. I put all the same weight/similar weights together with the same groups, but one group was the oddball weight ones...so it kinda ruined that test a little....like the 2460 lower weighted result had the mixed weight bullets in it.

the noslers are more consistent. The OAL range of the noslers was also better, being that the nose was more consistent shape. By about .002.

[9MMand223only]

Powder	FILL	5MOA	4MOA	3MOA	Chrono1	Chrono2	Chrono3	Chrono4	Chrono5	AVG.	DEV	5RANK	4RANK	3RANK	Overall
N203B	24.30	0.52	0.20	0.20	2730	2731	2714	2736	2720	2726	9.00	1	1	4	1
W748	23.70	0.60	0.54	0.32	2643	2632	2654	2633	2651	2643	10.10	4	7	8	7
N140	23.50	0.67	0.55	0.20	2607	2599	2594	2589	2595	2597	6.70	8	8	3	6
N140	24.50	0.58	0.22	0.22	2717	2715	2725	2723	2718	2720	4.20	3	2	6	2
Varget	23.50	1.03	0.41	0.21	2647	2655	2622	2643	2650	2643	12.70	16	4	5	9
Varget	25.00	0.76	0.62	0.55	2800	2798	2821	2830	2817	2813	13.80	10	10	13	10
N135	23.50	0.58	0.48	0.19	2830	2825	2831	2836	2820	2828	6.10	2	5	2	3
IMR4166	23.60	0.76	0.72	0.72	2657	2649	2641	2680	2680	2661	17.90	9	14	17	13
IMR4166	24.00	0.91	0.73	0.35	2701	2696	2715	2691	2702	2701	9.00	12	15	10	11
N140	23.50	0.66	0.40	0.28	2609	2597	2589	2606	2587	2598	9.80	7	3	7	5
N201	22.80	1.11	0.93	0.88	2627	2645	2625	2632	2642	2634	8.90	18	18	19	19
N201	23.40	1.14	0.91	0.76	2714	2720	2704	2705	2714	2711	6.80	19	17	18	18
N202	23.50	1.02	0.85	0.67	2707	2689	2702	2691	2708	2699	8.90	15	16	15	16
N202	24.00	0.63	0.52	0.17	2769	2755	2770	2764	2752	2762	8.20	5	6	1	4
CFE223	24.10	1.05	1.00	0.54	2533	2545	2535	2545	2519	2535	10.70	17	20	12	17
CFE223	24.60	1.00	0.71	0.70	2604	2610	2591	2598	2596	2600	7.40	14	13	16	15
H335	22.50	1.47	0.97	0.89	2564	2551	2571	2530	2560	2555	15.80	20	19	20	20
H335	23.20	0.97	0.60	0.54	2690	2675	2654	2650	2661	2666	16.40	13	9	11	12
TAC	23.80	0.63	0.63	0.34	2696	2720	2682	2705	2716	2704	15.40	6	11	9	8
TAC	24.80	0.87	0.71	0.62	2814	2805	2817	2830	2800	2813	11.60	11	12	14	14
Benmrk	25.00	1.28	1.02	0.69	3137	3135	3117	3145	3150	3137	12.60	55 grain Hornady FMJBT			
CFE223	24.10	1.18	0.57	0.43	2606	2611	2571	2604	2569	2592	20.40	77 Grain Nosler CC			
CFE223	24.50	0.90	0.83	0.43	2641	2645	2650	2629	2640	2641	7.80	77 Grain Nosler CC

Hmm that was better, I think. Thank you UncleNick.

Ok, 2nd round is complete. The winner. again, is:

N203b/RL15.

N140 is right up there, varget, etc.

The testing conditions this time, today, were nowhere near as good as last time. Nowhere near. Today was a variable wind that was changing direction, from 4-8 MPH, blowing from (clock) 7 to 1, and changing to 9 to 3, every everywhere in between. Because of this, it, I felt, effected results without question.

On the 203b, N140, N135, Varget, W748 if the wind was still, it "could have" sub .4 MOA. I think.

I like the 100 yard testing I think. still not sure. good thing about it, is I am aiming at literally like within .~1 MOA spot, versus at 219 yards, its like a ~2 MOA spot.

Here are my observations on the powders, after shooting 2 rounds.

Vihtavuori across the board is just the powder to beat, in every single test, in every single caliber, in every single weight bullet. Its just it seems like a level "higher". Its consistent, it meters good, its good velocity. Its just everything you could want, and I see no downside to it at all other than costing $7 a lb more on average? I mean usually, you test a powder, and its good in a "range" of withing 1 grain, conservatively. But what I see with this brand is its good at almost any load. Its just ridiculous.

H335 likes it hotter, plainly in the tests. The 22.5 grain load was all over the place, but the 23.2 was quite good. A totally different animal. Vastly better. Night and day.

IMR4166. I have been "struggling" to find a load that is even decent with this powder. To be honest, I just hate it. I can't meter it, it sticks and makes a mess unless I spend hours polishing my drop, then after I do that, it still sticks once in a while. sigh.... THEN I tried probably, lets see...6? different loads in heavy type bullets with this powder, and nothing within the loading specs was above average accuracy. So then I loaded it ABOVE load specifications, and it woke up, and was better than average accuracy in 55 grain, and 75 grain. But the problem is, the damn powder is hard stick. And its massively compressed. I put my redding competition dial on a setting that gives me say 2.255 with Hornady 75 Grain Match. right? I load the 23.6 and 24 grain loads, I pull down the handle. Crunch. I measure. They are all like ~2.263 or so. So no problem, I lower my dial on the redding comp .008, do it again. 2.261. -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-? I lower the damn dial .020 20k and it goes to 2.259. And I wonder to myself....if I left this ammo sitting around, would the pressure of the compression "push" the bullet back out past the limit of 2.260? I don't know. Probably not. And also, way over the loading limit on this powder, and the velocity is STILL not high? I just don't understand it? Its an expensive powder too? We are in a powder shortage massively, and IMR comes with 3 new Rifle Powders, and this IMR4166 is terrible in my opinion? I wonder who is running this company? You come with a new rifle power for 223, it better compete with the already good powders right? IMR4166 is one of the slowest velocity powders made for 223? Its one of the most expensive? And it meters like terrible? I don't get it? How about come with 3 brand new PISTOL powders with copper reducing instead? The market NEEDS that? This IMR4166 is just not my thing, I won't buy it again. Maybe its better in larger cases, like 308, or 22-250, etc. For 223, its just not an opimum choice. At all.

W748: Surprised me. Ball powder like this? Hanging with VV in a surprisingly good load for heavy bullets? Very good powder I think. Good velocity, no signs of case pressures, very accurate. I really like it. Cheap too. Gooood powder. very good.

TAC: Great velocity on TAC in these heavy bullets, it meters like a dream, its one of the cheapest rifle powders out, and its way above average accuracy. No wonder so many people love it, it is very good.

CFE223: I can see this powder likes hotter loads toward the top of its rec load range. I don't think I have found its most accurate load with heavy bullets yet. The 24.6 group was vastly better than the 24.1 group. Just had 1 flyer outside the "core" of hits. It was windy. So I think this powder is above average accuracy and good velocity. real good.

Norma 203b/RL15. Its funny people all around say this is the most accurate heavy 223 powder. Its usually people saying this, Varget, or N140. And yes, they were all right I think. Its just hard to imagine beating the accuracy of this, its just complete stupidity, and I have not even tried a lot of loads. I do 2 loads in 75 grain, and 1 of them is the best in back to back tests against 19 other loads? Thats REAL good.

So wind was a factor today, but it was amazing in this wind, how some of the groups were so small. I was really amazed. I thought a REAL good group today would be 1 MOA. variable wind that was changing direction? Not great. But WOW.
203B/RL15 pic attached. I think without that dramatic wind changing, this would all be in that one group hole. That one group hole has 4 bullets in it. I was looking through the 20x scope, after each shot, and I was like..."did that hit the same damn hole as the last shot?"! And it kept doing it...the last shot was a tiny bit off.

[Rimfire5]

Nice results.

I haven't had the same great results with RL-15.
I may have to go back and try it again.

[HiBC]

My experiments have lead me to

75-77 gr 1 in 8 twist,RE-15

69 gr 1 in 9 twist,Varget

Another place to evaluate the performance in an AR,what does the BCG look like? A clean burn is good.Those two powders perform well there,too.
Oh,as a bonus,for an expanding varmint bullet,the 60 gr Varmint Ballistic tip works very well with Benchmark.

[9MMand223only]

Thanks.

For varmint, I have Nosler FB Tipped 55 grain. Similar to that one you mentioned.

My next test is going to be 77 grain Nosler CC with the stand outs of the 75 grain Hornady Match testing.

203b/RL15 will have another battle with N140 and N135 basicially, with Varget barely behind.

Then final test, 77 Grain Sierra Moly Match Kings @ 545 yards.

[9MMand223only]

Latest round completed today. 1 more round to go. Today was a little more windy than last time, and that caused the groups to be a little larger, most likely. Hard to say how much exactly. I would guess, from shooting in the past the exact same loads of a few of these, from .3 MOA to .5 MOA.


ALL TESTS THIS TIME: 10 SHOT GROUPS.

I also did some other tests.

test #1. What general effect does less case capacity have on velocity? Answer: The case with .7 grains less H20 was ~36 FPS faster average.

test #2. What general effect does water in the case have? I took CFE223, 25 grain load, in brand new brass. I placed a little CFE in the bottom of the case, then I dropped 1 drop of water in the case, then put the rest of the powder. I full drop is actually quite a bit. Of note, smokeless powder is not soluble in water, and of note, water cannot compress. Answer: inaccurate shots.
Shot #1: -75 FPS less than normal without water, and that shot was 2.8" away from center mass of normal CFE 25 grain groups, everything else same.
Shot #2: +95 FPS more than normal without water, and that shot was 3" away from center mass of normal CFE 25 grain groups, everything else same.

So the answer is, its completely unpredictable. Undoubably from the burn having to encounter an obstacle in the flow of the flame, thus causing inconsistent burn rate, causing the pressure to vary greatly.

MAIN TESTS
I believe personally, the Hornady 75 Grain Match is more accurate in my gun than the 77 grain Nosler CC, even though the wind blew more today, than when I tested the 2x with the Hornady. But I get this idea from the control groups, which were quite good, even in the wind. As you can see, the AA2230 control group of 10 shots, beat EVERYTHING. however, 26 grains of 2230 using a tipped bullet is damned accurate, and top tier.

Methodology: 10 shot groups. 10 shot MOA (all shots MOA), then the best 8 shots MOA, then the best 6 shots MOA.

Powder	Bullet	Grain	FILL	10MOA	8MOA	6MOA	AVG.	DEV	10RANK	8RANK	6RANK	Overall	Total
Varget	Nos CC	77	23.90	1.022	0.676	0.449	2743	9.3	5	4	3	3	2.147086915
Varget	Nos CC	77	24.80	1.011	0.618	0.593	2886	14.5	3	2	8	4	2.221585482
W748	Nos CC	77	23.50	1.528	1.433	1.051	2664	16.2	9	11	10	10	4.011461318
CFE223	Nos CC	77	25.30	1.165	0.573	0.526	2902	20.8	8	1	6	6	2.264565425
vvN135	Nos CC	77	23.50	1.012	0.798	0.430	2890	6.6	4	6	2	5	2.239732569
vvN140	Nos CC	77	23.50	0.908	0.643	0.519	2706	6.5	2	3	5	2	2.069723018
vvN140	Nos CC	77	24.30	0.835	0.696	0.296	2782	12.5	1	5	1	1	1.827125119
TAC	Nos CC	77	23.80	1.051	0.811	0.456	2742	9.6	6	7	4	7	2.317096466
203B	Nos CC	77	24.10	1.710	1.231	0.764	2789	13.8	10	9	9	9	3.70487106
CFE223	Nos CC	77	25.00	1.146	0.904	0.573	2774	19.8	7	8	7	8	2.623686724
CFE223	30h20	77	25.00	1.968	1.337	1.242	2720	13.6	12	10	11	11	4.546322827
CFE223	29.3h20	77	25.00	1.948	1.500	1.336	2756	4.3	11	12	12	12	4.784145177
AA2230	55FMJBT	55	26.00	1.366	1.051	0.602	3149	15.7					
AA2230	N.FBTP	55	26.00	0.631	0.630	0.299	2903	19.0

*** the 2 loads, the 30 grains H20, and 29.3 grains H20 CFE223 25 grains were NOT using new Lapua brass. They used another brand brass, but it was brand new. Quite a large difference between the accuracy of the Lapua, and the other brand? And the 2 control groups was using used MIXED brass, and NOT Lapua.

And look at that?

Winner: VV N140 both loads. Runner up, tried and true varget 23.9.
203B/RL15 was TERRIBLE with this load and this bullet. My guess is too much charge. I think it would be much more accurate with less charge, but I do not know. The spread of the group was not good at all.

So after 3 rounds of testing, the leader is N140, runner up is Varget.

Of note, that N135 load there, when I shot it, I could feel like the bolt of the gun "float" feeling, or have some sort of "lag", and the bolt stamped the brass on all shots. The primers were all pretty flat, but no primers were popped or have any other issues. According to quickload, the pressure of this N135 load was about 70,000 PSI. As you can see, it was almost 2900 FPS and quite a hot load because of a variety of factors I put into those 10 loads.

I do not recommend anyone does this. Recoil wasn't too much at all either, the crosshairs merely moved off the target at 100 yards, I would say about 6"? It just felt funny because the bolt was hitting the buffer spring so hard.

I have never popped a primer, ever, only severely flattened them, and I was using CCI Small Rifle #400.

Next test:

Sierra Match King 77 Grain Moly Coated with the winners from Round 3. Loads will be 20 shots each. In this, I will do a couple lighter loads of 5-10 rounds each with the 203B for good measure.

[9MMand223only]

Ok the finalists made it to the final round, and we have winners and losers.

Final group today was Sierra Match King 77 Grain MOLY coated bullets in Lapua brass, using CCI41 primers.

Wind was variable, but light, at around 5 MPH, varying 1-2 MPH at times./

100 yards.

Powder	FILL	MOA	Comments
203B	24.00	0.543	First 10 shots out of the barrel using Moly
N135	21.80	0.694	Good load, not 1 hole, most hits covered within .3" of POA
AA2460	23.30	0.564	Above average group, lots of hits around the same hole.
Varget	23.90	0.606	Had a couple bullets slightly outside of most, causing it to be more MOA
203B	24.00	0.592	Had a couple bullets slightly outside of most, causing it to be more MOA
N135	22.50	0.278	Stupid accurate, unbelievable, will have to test again to confirm
203B	23.00	0.487	Good load, not 1 hole, most hits covered within .2" of POA
N140	24.10	0.621	Had a couple bullets slightly outside of most, causing it to be more MOA
TAC	24.00	0.564	Good load, not 1 hole, most hits covered within .2" of POA
TAC	22.50	0.592	24 grain load was consistently closer to POA, less scattered

I have to say, these bullets are very accurate overall. I give them highest accuracy marks, personally, vs the Hornady or Nosler. Of course, they are like $160 for 500, but you get what you pay for.

So after shooting:
Hornady 75 Grain Match BT
Nosler Custom Competition 77
Sierra Match King 77 Moly coated

I think I will stick with TAC, and VV powders. TAC came in middle of the pack on the most accurate loads in all tests, and for the price and how easy it is to meter, that makes it a top choice.

VV won the accuracy contest, by a good margin overall. And my opinion, and that is all it is, my opinion is that VV powder is simply the most accurate, best powder I can buy for a 223 from 53 grain up to 77 grain, so far in my hundreds and hundreds of load tests.

I vote VV as the #1 powder on the planet.
And I vote TAC as the best "value" of any 223 powder on the planet.
W748 is a close second from TAC, however, as it meters great and is cheap too. The W748 just did not perform as well as the TAC across the wide range of weights of bullets. Its good though, really good.

CFE223, was good, but I could not find a "stand out" load with it, that is consistently great. It takes a lot of it to fill a case in lighter bullets, and its SUPER DUPER static-y making it kind of frustrating to meter or load at times, not all the time...and its a little pricier too. It is simply good, but not great.

All my opinion and opinions vary. I will stick with VV and TAC mostly.

Thank you all for watching all these tests.