Duplicating factory 223 rem.

[slammedsi]

To start all my reloading data and supply's have been put in storage do to my wife having a little one. Short and sweet, I'm wanting to duplicate the factory 55gr fmj 223 Remington loads of any brand. Can y'all give me a a powder brand and charge weights, along with the primers recommend. Thanks!

[jepp2]

Any reason why the Hodgdon data doesn't meet your needs?

Cartridge Information
Case: 	 Winchester 	Barrel Length: 	 24"
Twist: 	 1:12" 	Trim Length: 	 1.750"
Primer: 	 Winchester SR 	 
	 
223 Remington  
Cartridge Load Data 	                             Starting Loads                 Maximum Loads
    Bullet  	Powder 	Bullet OD    C.O.L. 	Grs. 	MV fps 	Pressure 	Grs. 	MV fps 	Pressure

55 GR. SPR SP  	CFE 223  .224"      2.200"  	26.0  	3133  	43,300 PSI  	27.8  	3329  	51,300 PSI 
55 GR. SPR SP  	H335  	 .224" 	    2.200"  	23.0  	3018  	40,800 CUP  	25.3  	3203  	49,300 CUP

[slammedsi]

Edit. It helps to read further haha.
I looked at there site just was unsure on what primers to use.

[Marco Califo]

You can duplicate this with LC brass, CCI#41 primer (this is the EXACT primer used the military, it is hot and thicker/less sensitive to slam fire), H335 (which is the same thing as WC844 with minor lot to lot differences in WC844), loaded to a velocity of 3250 fps (you can use a chronograph and measure, or, extrapolate and estimate from Hodgdon's data); I say 25.5 to 26.5 grns, and routinely go higher referencing Sierra Bullets data, working up, and watching for pressure signs. The [xx.x] indicated below is what the TM says, and I have loaded that, but I believe everyone here would consider that full load to be definitely on the HOT side. I have not chrono-ed that load but would expect it to exceed 3300 fps.

"CARTRIDGE, 5.56MM, BALL, M193
Description:
BALL Cartridge. The cartridge is identified by a plain
bullet tip.
Propellant:
Type ...............................WC 844
Weight .............................[xx.x]
Projectile:
Weight .............................56 gr
Performance:
Velocity ..............................3250 fps, 15 ft from
muzzle"

And I am proudly and confidently carrying a Glock on my hip at work right now.

[Sport45]

Edit. It helps to read further haha.
I looked at there site just was unsure on what primers to use.

If you select "print" on the website you can see the primer selected on the preview screen. I think it will always be the Winchester brand appropriate for the cartridge, in this case a Winchester SR primer.

I use Wolf SRM primers for all my .223 loading these days. I used to use Winchester SR (the nickel plated ones) and had no problem with those either. Switched during the great component shortage of '08.

[slammedsi]

Marko your loading with H335 is exactly what im looking for thanks.

I do have a question tho. Wanting to know if I can use wolf sr primers for that loading.

[Marco Califo]

The Russian primers are good.
I have not tried them, but have not heard anything bad about them.
I settled on the CCI #41 for 223 and #34 for 308 because I have auto loaders as well as bolt guns, they are a known quality component and are not too expensive if you shop around.

[7.62 Nato]

I understand that the Wolf primers are good and hot, listed as small rifle magnum. If using these reduce your start load and work up (as always).

[Marco Califo]

Since CCI #41 are also considered to be SRM, Wolf and Tula (they are made in the same factory) are apparently interchangeable within reason. But when working with hot loads you should always work up with caution.

[slammedsi]

Well went to the local gun shop here in town. Managed to buy a 700 dollars in supplys just for 223 haha. Between the 16 lbs of powder, primers, bullets and brass I might have enough to make several thousand rounds. They way reloading supplys are flying off the shelves, im starting to think its going to be like 2008 all over. Figured I would stock up while I still can.

[Bart B.]

What lot of factory ammo do you want to equal and what parmeter of it is your selection?

Velocity? Pressure?

Note that no two lots will produce the same numbers in your barrel and your barrel won't produce the numbers factories publish for a given load. Your barrel's different that what the factory uses.

Within 1% is close enough for everyone to use.

[slammedsi]

You know im not really sure. Is that bad to say? haha. The only thing i want to do is make a round that is close to 3250FPS, as my scope on my AR is made for the 223 at that velocity.

Also wanted to ask what powders are denser, Reason i ask is i want to make as many rounds to a pound of powder as I can. For example, Take H335 at 25.3 grains for a velocity of 3205 fps. So 7000 Grains to a lb, 7000/25.3=276.67 Rounds per pound.

Velocity and accuracy aside and only looking for cost. What powders make the most rounds to a pound?

[Sport45]

Originally Posted by slammedsi

Velocity and accuracy aside and only looking for cost. What powders make the most rounds to a pound?

Probably something like Unique or Blue Dot. But you won't be getting anywhere near the velocity you want.

I suggest you forget about rounds per pound. All the appropriate powders for the cartridge will be in the 23 to 26 gr per round range.

[hooligan1]

My son loads .223, and use 748, with CCI 400, and 55 grain B-tip, it's accurate.

[slammedsi]

Sport, thanks for the tip.

[Unclenick]

Originally Posted by Marco Califo

Straight from US Military TM43-0001-27. . .
H335 (which is the same thing as WC844 with minor lot to lot differences in WC844)

Marco, for safety reasons I have to point out that, TM43-0001-27 is not a load manual. It just is supposed to provide a generalized description of typical ammo, and at best gives you a load that some particular lot of powder was loaded to at some point. At worst it has some information that is just flat wrong. The example I first noticed is that it gives .30-06 M72 Match the same powder charge as M2 Ball. Both loads were long obsolete by the time the manual was put together, with M2 ball ammo have gone over to being loaded with WC852 by then. It lists 50 grains of IMR 4895 for both cartridges, but M72 was only ever loaded with between 46.0 grains and 48.5 grains of IMR 4895. The 2.5 grain span is due to the difference in the burn rates of different powder lots they redeveloped the load with.

That's the second problem. The military uses bulk grade powder. The canister grade sold to reloaders is blended from bulk lots of the same powder that happened to come out with different burn rates, some high and some low. Blending keeps the canister powder within 3% of its nominal burn rate so load data in manuals remains usable. Bulk powders, though, pretty commonly have 10% burn rate differences, with occasional lots as much as 20% different. The bulk powder loads are worked up in pressure guns to establish charge weight, which can come out different for every lot. Bulk powder is cheaper than paying for blending, which is why bulk powder is used by large manufacturing operations.

The bottom line is that load data reported for a particular lot of WC844 in that manual, assuming it is even accurately reported, cannot be counted on to be a good match to H355 without careful load workup and testing for comparison. If it works out, that is just good luck. If it seemed hot, though, it may well have been too hot for regular use as the lot of powder the load was originally developed for could have been slower burning than average or than and H335 ever is.


Jepp2,

Please read the board policy on copying copyrighted materials into posts. I know it's a nuisance. The lawyers seem sometimes determined to take the fun out of everything, but I've since found one article on a team of litigators suing web sites for newspaper article copies. You can quote a load or two and give the case and primer safely, but beyond that you have to figure that anything that lets eyes skip the copyright holder's advertising has potential to become an issue.

[Marco Califo]

Removed the TM load data for the reasons Unclenick cites.

[Unclenick]

Thanks.

I thought I should add to the discussion that TulAmmo has a NATO sensitivity spec small primer equivalent to the CCI #41 that is the KVB556M. Their regular sensitivity small rifle magnum primer is their KVB223M. and that's the one that seems to perform identically to the Wolf small rifle magnum primer. Wolf does not seem to be carrying the NATO spec primer. The "M" in these part numbers is for "Magnum".

If you want a military sensitivity small rifle primer that is not magnum, this year Federal introduced their GMM205MAR primer, which is identical to their GMM205M match primer except for sensitivity. The "M" in Federal part numbers is for "Match" and not magnum. I emailed Federal about them and got the information that, unlike CCI's design that arrives at the mil sensitivity by shortening the anvil legs, Federal is doing it by thickening the cup. That's probably a better approach for Federal as these primers may be loaded to 556 NATO pressures rather than just SAAMI pressures and the Federal standard cups are none too hard to start with. I don't know how Tula goes about arriving at military sensitivity. Anyway, if you are using stick powders, you may want to try the Federals for comparison to the other two as the stick powders don't seem to mind a milder primer.

[slammedsi]

Thanks everyone for the information.