The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 10, 2012, 04:26 PM   #1
Colorado Redneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2008
Location: Northeast Colorado
Posts: 1,060
IMR 4198 in 222 Remington

I have tried IMR 4198 with several projectiles for 222 Rem. It is highly recommended for the caliber, and there is lots of data for it. My experience with this powder is lesss than positive. The rifle is a CZ 527 American with 22 inch barrel. Two issues with this powder:

1.)It is kind of bulky and the stuff doesn't meter very well. Seems to be light for volume, and the max recommended loads leave some empty space in the cases.

2.)The velocities this has produced are 150-300 fps less than load books and web information has indicated could be expected. I have both Nosler and Hornady load manuals, and have also used data from the IMR/Hodgdon website. Other powders are performing fairly closely to the load data.

It wold be logical that perhaps some bullets would not perform like the books say, but for the 5 different bullets that have been loaded over this powder to all run significantly slower than predicted seems kind of odd.

I am using Rem brass, Rem 7-1/2 primers, trim to spec'ed length, seated as spec'ed expcept for Nosler, and those were loaded .02 off the lands.

Hornady 35 gr. Vmax, Hornady 40 Gr. Vmax, Sierra 40 BK, Nosler 40 BT, and 35 gr. Nosler BT LF.

Any other hand loaders experience stuff like this with this or any other powder?
Colorado Redneck is offline  
Old March 10, 2012, 05:05 PM   #2
mrawesome22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 9, 2005
Location: Ohio, Appalachia's foothills.
Posts: 3,779
If it leaves space in the case, it is not an ideal choice.

Pick a powder that fills the case or is slightly compressed and gives acceptable velocities.

Compressed chares will give you the lowest es and sd.
mrawesome22 is offline  
Old March 10, 2012, 05:36 PM   #3
243winxb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2011
Posts: 970
IMR 4198 is as you have said.
243winxb is offline  
Old March 10, 2012, 09:36 PM   #4
Colorado Redneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2008
Location: Northeast Colorado
Posts: 1,060
Thanks for the reassurance

The 222 has always interested me, and there are lots of powders and bullets to fool around with.

Thanks again--
Colorado Redneck is offline  
Old March 10, 2012, 10:17 PM   #5
Toolman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2006
Posts: 514
My old 722 loves Ramshot Exterminator W/55gr bullet.
__________________
Crime Control. NOT Gun Control.
Toolman is offline  
Old September 22, 2012, 01:13 AM   #6
Dttorres
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2012
Posts: 1
.222 600 Remington

Try using h4198 powder with nosler BT LF, fills case nicely. 20.5 grains. Shoots very accurate with h4198 and 40 gr hdy vmax . My barrel twist rate is 1-14" and 18 1/2" long. Tight groups up to 53 gr bullets.40 gr is best.
Dttorres is offline  
Old September 22, 2012, 06:17 AM   #7
hodaka
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2006
Location: South Texas
Posts: 1,828
My entry into .223 reloading was with IMR 4198. My mentor used it. It worked fine but I have since ended up with H-322 for that caliber after trying 4-5 more. I suspect 322 that would work nicely with the .222 as well.
hodaka is offline  
Old September 22, 2012, 10:23 AM   #8
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,125
H335 is a good powder for .222.
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old September 22, 2012, 11:28 AM   #9
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,244
I've always had great accuracy from IMR 4198 with 50 grain and 53 grain flat base bullets in the .222. I've never messed with the lighter bullets in it. The barrel twist seems best suited to the flat base 50 grain weight range. I drilled many a five leaf clover with my old Remington 600 using a Lee Manufacturing Zero Error Lee Loader and a powder scoop that threw about 18.5 grains.

I actually used 6½ primers with that lower pressure load. Mild primers are good for consistency with the easy lighting stick powders. I find 7½'s a little warm for that case capacity unless you have to light one of the older spherical powders. Today I would try Federal 205 or 205M or one of the mild Russian TulAmmo KVB223 or Wolf NC223 with either make of 4198.

As to velocities, it's not unusual for individual gun dimensions and bores to cause a couple hundred fps difference in velocity. Have you measured the water overflow capacity of your fired cases? It's the volume the case expands to in your chamber than usually determines peak pressure. You have to keep in mind that the test barrels used by Hodgdon have carefully made plus or minus half a thousandth minimum dimension chambers that maximize pressure. If your cases come out a little large, that will be part of the velocity problem.

If you run out of room for powder, you can try a tall drop tube. Below is an image of the same charge of 4064 from no drop tube to small drop tube to long drop tube in .30-06. I don't have a picture of 4198 in .222, but the same principle will apply. Drop tubes make quite a difference with stick powders, though not much with spherical powders.

__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
Unclenick is offline  
Old September 23, 2012, 11:02 AM   #10
old roper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2007
Posts: 1,069
Got one question how is the accuracy using IMR-4198? I know lot of the BR guys switched from IMR-4198 to IMR/H-4895 for the 222 seemed to do better with that powder but they were shooting the heavier bullets.

My first Rem 40x was the 222 and they furnished 2-5 shot test target plus loads and the use 52gr FB match bullet with 23.5gr/IMR4895 and my groups were in the low .2's.

I've used that same load pass 20yrs plus years in varies 222 with 50/52gr bullet rem 7.5 or fed 205 primers and this may sound odd but I've never chronograph that load. It's been a great PD load out to 300/400yds depending on conditions in my latest custom 222.

I've also had good luck with H-322,N-133 and surplus IMR-8208.
__________________
Semper Fi
Vietnam
VFW
old roper is offline  
Old September 23, 2012, 08:24 PM   #11
crowbeaner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 1,938
I tried both 4198s back in the late 60s and early 70s. My rifle would tolerate them with 50 grain or heavier bullets, but neither had enough accuracy to make life interesting. I switched to RL7,BLC2, and WW748. VOILA- one hole groups.
WW brass, match prepped, RP 7 1/2 primer, any 50 grain bullet, 21.0 of RL7
WW brass, match prep, 52 grain Speer HP, CCI 400, 24.0 of BLC2
RP brass, match prep, RP 7 1/2 primer, 55 grain Speer SP or RP PLPHP, 24.0 of WW748

Any of these loads will shoot one hole groups with no wind in my older M700. I have a 4x12 Bushnell in Weaver mounts. Varmints DO NOT play well with these; they have a tendency to fall over DRT out to 350ish yards if I have a steady rest. YMMV. CB.
__________________
If you want your children to follow in your footsteps, be careful where you walk.
Beware the man that only owns one gun; he probably knows how to use it.
I just hope my ship comes in before my dock rots.
crowbeaner is offline  
Old September 23, 2012, 08:48 PM   #12
jepp2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2008
Location: Loveland, CO
Posts: 1,340
Based on the good results others claim to have using IMR 4198 in the 222, I have tried a variety of loads using it. And to date, I have never achieved the group size that I know my rifles are capable of. I have always gotten much tighter groups using IMR 4895, even when it shouldn't group as well as it does.

I will keep trying different loads, but I have already tried quite a few.
jepp2 is offline  
Old September 24, 2012, 08:54 AM   #13
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,244
I never had any accuracy problems with that old 18.5 grains load of IMR 4198 and Plain Jane Hornady 50 grain flat base soft point bullets. All holes always touching out of the 600, and it's not even a match bullet.

One day I was shooting 25 yard centers at 100 yards with it, and after firing the fourth shot in a group, looked through the scope (an inexpensive Weaver 3-9X that wasn't very bright and that I could barely make out holes in the black with) and I saw a flier about an inch out at 2:00. I figured the scope must have shifted, so, just to prove it, I put the crosshairs over the stray hole and pressed the trigger, fully expecting to get one still another inch further out. No new hole appeared at all.

Now I was really puzzled. So, I walked up to the target. Once there, I could see the hole I'd thought had been a flier was actually doubled in with one of the other three in the original group. At the flier position was my last shot with six little black fly leg dust prints neatly centered by the hole. So, as far as I'm concerned 4198 will at least keep the insect population terrorized, and before you boast about taking out small varmints with your gun, please keep the ones that size in mind.

I subsequently learned that quite a number of folks make a regular sport of fly shooting. I never inquired too far into it, though, not wanting to hear how the baiting was done.

I recently came across a box of 500 new Remington .222 cases in my basement that I'd purchased on sale a dozen years ago, then forgot about. I'll probably sort out the lowest wall runout among those and take some Sierra 53 grain FB MK's and Reloader 10X or some H322 and a 205M or KVB223 primer and see what I can work up. The 4895's seems like they ought to be a bit slow for the bullet weight, but lots of success has been reported, above. I've had good luck with IMR 4198, but 10X and H322 are inbetween the two and may be a good compromise. I'll just have to try them and see.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
Unclenick is offline  
Old September 24, 2012, 09:32 AM   #14
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,125
Baiting? A lick of larrupin' syrup on the front gatepost works like a champ.
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old September 24, 2012, 09:40 PM   #15
old roper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2007
Posts: 1,069
In the mid 80's Dave Brennan Editor of Precision Shooting send a letter to Mike Walker,Ed Shilen,Walt Berger,Fred Hall,George Kelby,Alan Hall,Stan Buchtel and few other asking how to make the 222 shoot well today later was dated Dec 19,1985.

One comment from Mike Walker was try H-322,Norma 210 maybe 203, Herc 17 and he mention last match he won with the 222 was 1975 and he used 4895.

Walter Berger talked about BLC-1 and H-335 and Ed Shilen mention having problems with primer using Rem 6.5 and last time he shot the 222 in a match was 1959/1960.

The letter and answer I posted is in Vol II March 1986-March 1987 Precision Shooting collection.

One of the problem with the 222 it's as accurate as the 6ppc and BR guy build few wildcats off the 222 case also off the 222mag just trying to get a case, it's like McMillan and his small group he shot at a match but he didn't win the match. Once they started wildcating the 222/222mag those won the matches.

Don't anyone get me wrong I'm a big fan of the 222 but it has it's flaws.
__________________
Semper Fi
Vietnam
VFW
old roper is offline  
Old September 25, 2012, 11:20 AM   #16
Scorch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: Washington state
Posts: 11,445
For the 222 Rem, best powders are H335 or H322. I hardly ever use stick powders any more.
__________________
Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs.
But what do I know?
Summit Arms Services
Taylor Machine
Scorch is offline  
Old September 25, 2012, 02:19 PM   #17
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,244
H322 is stick (or maybe you meant you're just using H335). The older sphericals are the ones that are hard to light. I had a chat with a lab tech at Western and he explained newer deterrent coatings have eliminated that difference (like in their Ramshot line). I don't know whether St. Marks has gone back and changed coatings on the WC8xx line or not (H335, BL-C(2), H380).
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
Unclenick is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11308 seconds with 9 queries