A couple 223 powders I tried

chris in va · June 24, 2011, 11:55 PM

So far my S&W has seen 1000 down the pipe, most being H335 and the rest 4064.

335 is pretty harsh on the action. I'm sure it belts out pretty good velocity, but I find 4064 to be quite a bit milder at the 26gr max charge (compressed load), so I'll probably stick with that. Plus I can also use it for my Garand loads.

223 shooter · June 25, 2011, 09:20 AM

H335 has always given me great results in accuracy with the 223 and the lighter 52 - 55 grain match bullets. Plus it meters with extreme consistency.

H322 , Benchmark and VV N-133 proved to be very accurate in my 223 loadings.

CherokeeT · June 25, 2011, 10:39 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by "harsh". I've been using H335 for 40 years with great results in 223 and 308.

chris in va · June 25, 2011, 10:43 AM

My AR is carbine length. Recoil is considerably 'harsher' with the 335 than the 4064. I may try downloading to minimum charge and see if it makes a difference.

Loader9 · June 26, 2011, 02:12 PM

Chris, if you are looking for a good powder for both cartridges, might look at IMR or H4895. The 4064 is a hair slow for the timing of the Garand. The IMR4895 was one of the powders developed for the Garand. It also works well in the 223. If you are wanting a powder that is extremely temp stable and works well in both and is reasonably priced, look to Ramshot TAC. It's an extremely fabulous powder most over look....and it's cheaper too.

zippy13 · June 26, 2011, 02:50 PM

"Recoil is considerably 'harsher' with the 335 than the 4064."

H335 has a faster burn rate than 4064. It's been my experience, for a given bullet and muzzle velocity, the faster the powder the 'harsher' recoil.

With respect to powder selection:
Years ago, I asked an elite level shooter what powder he used. To his reply, I responded, "But, isn't it pretty dirty?"
He gave me a condescending look and said, "Do you want a clean gun, or a winning score?" The same might be said when comparing burning rates.

4runnerman · June 26, 2011, 03:20 PM

Tried them all and when it was over RL-15 came in # 1 by a big margin for sure.

TXGunNut · June 26, 2011, 03:55 PM

.223 is the only rifle cartridge I load where I only use one powder, it's 748. Awesome groups for bullets 40-55 grs (haven't tried anything heavier) and it meters well. Someday I'll try H335, RL-15 looks promising as well.

old roper · June 26, 2011, 04:31 PM

Years ago I ordered a Rem 40x in 223 with 1/14 twist barrel and they furnished two test target 5 shot groups with the rifle. The targets I got had the two 5 shoot groups were in the mid .2's using 26gr/IMR4895 with 52 gr Berger bullet and that the same load they used in the 222mag.

Over the years I've good luck with H-335, N133,suplus IMR-8208,Scot 3032,Tac plus H-4895.

**Unclenick** · June 26, 2011, 05:01 PM

I'll have to disagree with the idea IMR 4064 is too slow for the Garand. It's actually cited by many as being the preferred match powder over IMR 4895 in the Garand. WC852, a spherical propellant (sold in canister grade by Hodgdon as H380) was, like 4895, developed for .30-06 military ammunition. It was used in LC M2 ball, yet it is slower than 4895, 4064 or even 4320 on Hodgdon's own burn rate chart. So burn rate is not really a problem with 4064 in the Garand at all. It is actually so close to that of 4895 that the difference is of no adverse consequence to the Garand, but, the difference isn't quite simple, either:

John Feamster did an interesting experiment with 4064 and 4895 firing the 168 grain Sierra MatchKing in the M14 that was published in the Precision Shooting Reloading Guide. He loaded the two powders to fixed velocities. Both are single-base and have about the same energy content per unit weight. At 2200 fps it took less 4064 than 4895, indicating 4064 was the faster powder. By the time he got to 2400 fps the charge weights were equal, indicating they had the same burn rate at that pressure level. At 2500 fps it took more 4064 than 4895, indicating it was now acting as the slower of the two.

That difference in relative burn rate under different conditions is caused by mainly by the different grain geometries. It reminds us that burn rates on a chart are only true under one fixed set of test conditions, and are not correct rankings under all conditions. The experiment also showed that the slope of the rate of change in burn rate with pressure is faster for 4895 than for 4064. That means 4064 is more tolerant of charge weight error and less sensitive to other factors that affect pressure, like temperature and case capacity variation. Those reasons make it more forgiving and easier to use as a match powder.

Another factor is that 4064 has lower bulk density than 4895. As a result, it fills the .30-06 case better, reducing velocity variations. That helps it serve well at longer range in Garand match loads.

For 4064 Garand match loads, John Clark published a number of them in 1985 in Handloader #114, and in the Rifleman in 1986 (I've forgotten the specific issue, though).

Apache6 · July 8, 2011, 12:13 AM

I tried BL C(2), dirty. Varget, case too full for progressive press (shakes out when changing stations). H322 is my next choice, but haven't shot it yet to see how it shoots. Loads great, though.

June 26, 2011, 04:31 PM	#9
old roper Senior Member Join Date: June 11, 2007 Posts: 2,164	Years ago I ordered a Rem 40x in 223 with 1/14 twist barrel and they furnished two test target 5 shot groups with the rifle. The targets I got had the two 5 shoot groups were in the mid .2's using 26gr/IMR4895 with 52 gr Berger bullet and that the same load they used in the 222mag. Over the years I've good luck with H-335, N133,suplus IMR-8208,Scot 3032,Tac plus H-4895. Last edited by old roper; June 26, 2011 at 04:36 PM.

June 26, 2011, 05:01 PM	#10
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,733	I'll have to disagree with the idea IMR 4064 is too slow for the Garand. It's actually cited by many as being the preferred match powder over IMR 4895 in the Garand. WC852, a spherical propellant (sold in canister grade by Hodgdon as H380) was, like 4895, developed for .30-06 military ammunition. It was used in LC M2 ball, yet it is slower than 4895, 4064 or even 4320 on Hodgdon's own burn rate chart. So burn rate is not really a problem with 4064 in the Garand at all. It is actually so close to that of 4895 that the difference is of no adverse consequence to the Garand, but, the difference isn't quite simple, either: John Feamster did an interesting experiment with 4064 and 4895 firing the 168 grain Sierra MatchKing in the M14 that was published in the Precision Shooting Reloading Guide. He loaded the two powders to fixed velocities. Both are single-base and have about the same energy content per unit weight. At 2200 fps it took less 4064 than 4895, indicating 4064 was the faster powder. By the time he got to 2400 fps the charge weights were equal, indicating they had the same burn rate at that pressure level. At 2500 fps it took more 4064 than 4895, indicating it was now acting as the slower of the two. That difference in relative burn rate under different conditions is caused by mainly by the different grain geometries. It reminds us that burn rates on a chart are only true under one fixed set of test conditions, and are not correct rankings under all conditions. The experiment also showed that the slope of the rate of change in burn rate with pressure is faster for 4895 than for 4064. That means 4064 is more tolerant of charge weight error and less sensitive to other factors that affect pressure, like temperature and case capacity variation. Those reasons make it more forgiving and easier to use as a match powder. Another factor is that 4064 has lower bulk density than 4895. As a result, it fills the .30-06 case better, reducing velocity variations. That helps it serve well at longer range in Garand match loads. For 4064 Garand match loads, John Clark published a number of them in 1985 in Handloader #114, and in the Rifleman in 1986 (I've forgotten the specific issue, though). __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

June 24, 2011, 11:55 PM	#1
chris in va Senior Member Join Date: December 26, 2004 Location: Louisville KY Posts: 13,806	A couple 223 powders I tried So far my S&W has seen 1000 down the pipe, most being H335 and the rest 4064. 335 is pretty harsh on the action. I'm sure it belts out pretty good velocity, but I find 4064 to be quite a bit milder at the 26gr max charge (compressed load), so I'll probably stick with that. Plus I can also use it for my Garand loads.

June 25, 2011, 09:20 AM	#2
223 shooter Senior Member Join Date: October 26, 2008 Posts: 557	H335 has always given me great results in accuracy with the 223 and the lighter 52 - 55 grain match bullets. Plus it meters with extreme consistency. H322 , Benchmark and VV N-133 proved to be very accurate in my 223 loadings.

June 25, 2011, 10:39 AM	#3
CherokeeT Senior Member Join Date: April 23, 2008 Location: Medina, Ohio Posts: 273	I'm not sure what you mean by "harsh". I've been using H335 for 40 years with great results in 223 and 308.

June 25, 2011, 10:43 AM	#4
chris in va Senior Member Join Date: December 26, 2004 Location: Louisville KY Posts: 13,806	My AR is carbine length. Recoil is considerably 'harsher' with the 335 than the 4064. I may try downloading to minimum charge and see if it makes a difference.

June 26, 2011, 02:12 PM	#5
Loader9 Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2008 Posts: 949	Chris, if you are looking for a good powder for both cartridges, might look at IMR or H4895. The 4064 is a hair slow for the timing of the Garand. The IMR4895 was one of the powders developed for the Garand. It also works well in the 223. If you are wanting a powder that is extremely temp stable and works well in both and is reasonably priced, look to Ramshot TAC. It's an extremely fabulous powder most over look....and it's cheaper too.

June 26, 2011, 02:50 PM	#6
zippy13 Senior Member Join Date: August 23, 2008 Location: SoCal Posts: 6,442	"Recoil is considerably 'harsher' with the 335 than the 4064." H335 has a faster burn rate than 4064. It's been my experience, for a given bullet and muzzle velocity, the faster the powder the 'harsher' recoil. With respect to powder selection: Years ago, I asked an elite level shooter what powder he used. To his reply, I responded, "But, isn't it pretty dirty?" He gave me a condescending look and said, "Do you want a clean gun, or a winning score?" The same might be said when comparing burning rates.

June 26, 2011, 03:20 PM	#7
4runnerman Senior Member Join Date: January 16, 2010 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,577	Tried them all and when it was over RL-15 came in # 1 by a big margin for sure.

June 26, 2011, 03:55 PM	#8
TXGunNut Senior Member Join Date: January 16, 2010 Location: If you have to ask... Posts: 2,860	.223 is the only rifle cartridge I load where I only use one powder, it's 748. Awesome groups for bullets 40-55 grs (haven't tried anything heavier) and it meters well. Someday I'll try H335, RL-15 looks promising as well.

July 8, 2011, 12:13 AM	#11
Apache6 Member Join Date: December 8, 2007 Posts: 87	I tried BL C(2), dirty. Varget, case too full for progressive press (shakes out when changing stations). H322 is my next choice, but haven't shot it yet to see how it shoots. Loads great, though.